...
[09:43:35 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> Aggregated 2718 events created at 14.9341 events/second between 2013-02-19T14:55:31.684-06:00 and 2013-02-19T14:58:33.908-06:00 in 46410ms - 58.5650 e/s a 3.9216x speedup.
[09:46:43 CST(-0600)] <jwennmacher> I see. Big difference in performance between yours and his.
[09:46:48 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> yes
[09:47:06 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> I think we might be at the point where he tries truncating the raw events table
[09:47:11 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> and seeing if that makes a difference
[09:47:19 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> he's on mysql right?
[09:47:29 CST(-0600)] <EricDalquist> I wonder if there are some other performance tweaks needed
[09:47:29 CST(-0600)] <jwennmacher> One interesting thing I see in Anthony's data is that the time reported for aggregation is fairly constant; e.g. 880s - 1311s when processing 10,000 or 2800 events. I could see that possibly being related to db performance.