Peter Z's comments on PBXT, My own thoughts
« previous entry | next entry »
Apr. 9th, 2007 | 02:40 am
LJ ate part of the post, so I am updating it with the original content.
I've not been posting a lot about my studies on bottlenecks in the
server and my work on what I am seeing with different engines, but I
thought I would comment on Peter's benchmarks on PBXT:
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/04/08/pbxt-benchmarks/
This is a bit off what I have found so far:
In all tests but the final, the task was to split a load among many connections and see how the engine behaved. PBXT's write performance is quite good. Its update crashed on me before I got to see how well it would perform and the scan read was awful. On the other hand its performance with mixed IO is quite good. For an engine at this point in its integration, these are all promising numbers. I've got little doubt about PBXT being an engine that people will use in production.
All numbers were performed on 5.1, and I used PBXT as a loadable engine (aka it was not statically compiled in).
If you are curious about the script I used to generate these numbers you can grab it here:
http://hg.tangent.org/bbench?ca=tip;type=gz
I've not been posting a lot about my studies on bottlenecks in the
server and my work on what I am seeing with different engines, but I
thought I would comment on Peter's benchmarks on PBXT:
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/04/08/pbxt-benchmarks/
This is a bit off what I have found so far:
In all tests but the final, the task was to split a load among many connections and see how the engine behaved. PBXT's write performance is quite good. Its update crashed on me before I got to see how well it would perform and the scan read was awful. On the other hand its performance with mixed IO is quite good. For an engine at this point in its integration, these are all promising numbers. I've got little doubt about PBXT being an engine that people will use in production.
All numbers were performed on 5.1, and I used PBXT as a loadable engine (aka it was not statically compiled in).
If you are curious about the script I used to generate these numbers you can grab it here:
http://hg.tangent.org/bbench?ca=tip;type=gz
??????
from:
burtonator
date: Apr. 9th, 2007 03:42 pm (UTC)
Link
I assume this unit of work fit in the INNODB row cache and that memory tables have global locks that were slowing down performance?
Kevin
Reply | Thread
Re: ??????
from:
burtonator
date: Apr. 9th, 2007 03:44 pm (UTC)
Link
Note to self. Never again read benchmarks when you're asleep.
Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: ??????
from:
krow
date: Apr. 9th, 2007 04:08 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: ??????
from:
peter_zaitsev
date: Apr. 10th, 2007 03:06 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
peter_zaitsev
date: Apr. 10th, 2007 03:08 pm (UTC)
Link
I have not yet checked your benchmark script to comment a lot, just wanted to mention you should keep into account PBXT does not flush neither logs nor data to the disk at all.
Reply | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Apr. 10th, 2007 08:03 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
peter_zaitsev
date: Apr. 10th, 2007 08:29 pm (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Apr. 10th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC)
Link
People really want an answer for what engine to use... I explain it from my own point of view, and design engines from this point of view.
What is frequently missing through is the "I need OLTP, what should I do". I think the answer is easy at the moment, everyone but Innodb has on training wheels, but I think this will become more difficult over time.
What have your thoughts on this been?
Reply | Parent | Thread