Because I had a bit of time I ran the script against two fresh MariaDB
containers on my workstation and here are the numbers, which look more
realistic

5.5.36
mysql::select_version::q/s....................... 43227
mysql::select_all::q/s........................... 21382
mysql::seq_insert::q/s............................. 165
mysql::update::q/s................................. 157
mysql::update_with_index::q/s...................... 161
mysql::transaction_insert::t/s..................... 157
mysql::delete::q/s................................. 159

10.11.6
mysql::select_version::q/s....................... 65544
mysql::select_all::q/s............................ 5134
mysql::seq_insert::q/s............................. 116
mysql::update::q/s................................. 161
mysql::update_with_index::q/s.................... 18419
mysql::transaction_insert::t/s..................... 155
mysql::delete::q/s................................. 122

As you can see some interesting differences:
- SELECT * being way slower on 10.11 on this benchmark
- UPDATE with index much faster on 10.11

the rest looks quite similar (benchmarking select version is without much
interest...)



Le lun. 7 oct. 2024 à 23:49, Guillaume Lefranc <[email protected]> a
écrit :

> I'm going to take my best guess here and assume that the 5.5 benchmark
> results are false results, which I am honestly surprised that nobody
> noticed before.
> 4M inserts or updates per second is completely unrealistic in real life
> scenarios.
> I gave a quick look to that benchmark script; it's single threaded and
> does no error checking at all. There is just no way such a script could
> reach 4M inserts per second, so I'm concluding you're just benchmarking
> errors here and nothing gets written to the DB.
>
> If you want to corroborate my theory just look at SHOW GLOBAL STATUS LIKE
> 'Com_Insert' and  SHOW GLOBAL STATUS LIKE 'Com_Update' counters on this DB.
> It should tell you how many inserts/updates have been recorded.
>
> I don't want to criticize the PHP script author's work, because his script
> might be perfectly fine for most situations, but if you want to do accurate
> DB benchmarking you should give a try to Sysbench.
>
> GL
>
> Le lun. 7 oct. 2024 à 17:38, Gordan Bobic via discuss <
> [email protected]> a écrit :
>
>> The only way there can be that big a difference is if there is a flushing
>> discrepancy in cofiguration.
>>
>> Have you verified your settings are actually the same, particularly the
>> ones containing "flush" and "sync" substrings.
>>
>> I seem to recall there was also a flush bug fixed since 5.5 that makes
>> things slower since then but made 5.5 not entirely crash-safe.
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024, 18:33 cyusedfzfb via discuss, <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, tested just now with Server version: 10.4.34-MariaDB MariaDB Server:
>>>
>>> Server version: 10.4.34-MariaDB MariaDB Server
>>> mysql::ping,0.0001
>>> mysql::select_version,0.1368
>>> mysql::select_all,0.7346
>>> mysql::select_cursor,0.9662
>>> mysql::seq_insert,4.4442
>>> mysql::bulk_insert,0.6946
>>> mysql::update,2.5573
>>> mysql::update_with_index,0.3629
>>> mysql::transaction_insert,4.7147
>>> mysql::indexes,0.2814
>>> mysql::delete,4.3666
>>> mysql::select_version::q/s,14616
>>> mysql::select_all::q/s,2723
>>> mysql::seq_insert::q/s,450
>>> mysql::update::q/s,782
>>> mysql::update_with_index::q/s,9248
>>> mysql::transaction_insert::t/s,424
>>> mysql::delete::q/s,458
>>> Total time,29.3222 s
>>> Peak memory usage,23.82 MiB
>>>
>>> So to update the "key observations":
>>>
>>> - **UPDATE performance:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *3,895,386* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *1,418* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *782* q/s
>>> - **UPDATE with index:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *4,105,436* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *8,963* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *9,248* q/s
>>> - **DELETE performance:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *4,436,065* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *899* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *458* q/s
>>>
>>> Hmm. 10.4.34 behaves much like 10.11.6, and very unlike the speedy
>>> gonzalez 5.5.68
>>>
>>> This is all very strange.
>>>
>>> On 10/7/24 16:41, Reinis Rozitis via discuss wrote:
>>> >> How can it be that MariaDB 5.5.68 is performing several orders of
>>> magnitude faster than 10.11.x for these specific operations?
>>> > Hello,
>>> > if you have means, could you test 10.4.34 which while EOL is the last
>>> version based on 5.5/5.6 MySQL and issues like these appeared
>>> >
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30501#comment-272740
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-29988
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-26055
>>> >
>>> > Which while marked Closed, point to different issues/problems where
>>> situation is still unclear ..
>>> >
>>> > I haven't tried the 10.11.x nor 11.x but none of the short-term
>>> release branches after 10.4 have performed even close (though not that
>>> dramatically) at least for our workload, so currently stuck on 10.4.x
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > p.s. sorry for not answering your questions and possibly increasing
>>> the load :)
>>> >
>>> > wbr
>>> > rr
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
>
> Le lun. 7 oct. 2024 à 17:38, Gordan Bobic via discuss <
> [email protected]> a écrit :
>
>> The only way there can be that big a difference is if there is a flushing
>> discrepancy in cofiguration.
>>
>> Have you verified your settings are actually the same, particularly the
>> ones containing "flush" and "sync" substrings.
>>
>> I seem to recall there was also a flush bug fixed since 5.5 that makes
>> things slower since then but made 5.5 not entirely crash-safe.
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024, 18:33 cyusedfzfb via discuss, <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, tested just now with Server version: 10.4.34-MariaDB MariaDB Server:
>>>
>>> Server version: 10.4.34-MariaDB MariaDB Server
>>> mysql::ping,0.0001
>>> mysql::select_version,0.1368
>>> mysql::select_all,0.7346
>>> mysql::select_cursor,0.9662
>>> mysql::seq_insert,4.4442
>>> mysql::bulk_insert,0.6946
>>> mysql::update,2.5573
>>> mysql::update_with_index,0.3629
>>> mysql::transaction_insert,4.7147
>>> mysql::indexes,0.2814
>>> mysql::delete,4.3666
>>> mysql::select_version::q/s,14616
>>> mysql::select_all::q/s,2723
>>> mysql::seq_insert::q/s,450
>>> mysql::update::q/s,782
>>> mysql::update_with_index::q/s,9248
>>> mysql::transaction_insert::t/s,424
>>> mysql::delete::q/s,458
>>> Total time,29.3222 s
>>> Peak memory usage,23.82 MiB
>>>
>>> So to update the "key observations":
>>>
>>> - **UPDATE performance:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *3,895,386* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *1,418* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *782* q/s
>>> - **UPDATE with index:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *4,105,436* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *8,963* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *9,248* q/s
>>> - **DELETE performance:**
>>>     - 5.5.68: *4,436,065* q/s
>>>     - 10.11.9: *899* q/s
>>>     - 10.4.34: *458* q/s
>>>
>>> Hmm. 10.4.34 behaves much like 10.11.6, and very unlike the speedy
>>> gonzalez 5.5.68
>>>
>>> This is all very strange.
>>>
>>> On 10/7/24 16:41, Reinis Rozitis via discuss wrote:
>>> >> How can it be that MariaDB 5.5.68 is performing several orders of
>>> magnitude faster than 10.11.x for these specific operations?
>>> > Hello,
>>> > if you have means, could you test 10.4.34 which while EOL is the last
>>> version based on 5.5/5.6 MySQL and issues like these appeared
>>> >
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30501#comment-272740
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-29988
>>> > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-26055
>>> >
>>> > Which while marked Closed, point to different issues/problems where
>>> situation is still unclear ..
>>> >
>>> > I haven't tried the 10.11.x nor 11.x but none of the short-term
>>> release branches after 10.4 have performed even close (though not that
>>> dramatically) at least for our workload, so currently stuck on 10.4.x
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > p.s. sorry for not answering your questions and possibly increasing
>>> the load :)
>>> >
>>> > wbr
>>> > rr
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to