On 1/1/07, mos wrote:
At 12:49 PM 1/1/2007, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>On 1/1/07, mos wrote:
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-postgresql-benchmarks/
http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/6
Has this been fixed?
As the article on the MySQL Performance Blog mentioned, a fix from
InnoDB has been integrated into 5.30.
5.0.30 I meant.
Tweakers.net has already tested
this fix and it does show some improvement, but it still has a long
way to go: http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/6
Yes Innodb has a long ways to go and I'm wondering if it is
fixable so the performance is more linear. As it is, performance in the
Tweakers' charts drop dramatically (tanks?) after 7 concurrent users even
for version 5.03. I know Innodb works best if the table fits into memory,
but for me that isn't practical (at least on one machine) because the
tables will grow over time and I don't want to crash into a wall when the
table exceeds memory capacity of the machine.
The tweakers.net tests are with all data in memory. It is very well
possible that the scaling behaviour of an I/O bound InnoDB application
is very different. I would expect it to show a lower peak performance,
but also a smaller drop-off after the peak.
So I'm wondering how high traffic websites that use Innodb can
overcome this problem? Google GMail, Craigs List, TIcket Master, Yahoo etc
all have high number of updates per second, so there must be an InnoDb
solution, right?
What exactly do they use MySQL for? For instance, doesn't Google just
write e-mail on a filesystems (GFS is essentially append-only) and
only keep a small amount of meta-data somewhere that is actually
updated? Design-wise I would expect their infrastructure to have much
more in common with Dovecot then an email-in-a-database solution.
I know these questions are pretty much rhetorical, but I thought I'd bounce
this off of you guys to see what the best approach is for a high traffic
transactional web site. If you were going to write one of these web sites I
mentioned, would you still use InnoDb?
I probably wouldn't use a relational database at all. Convenient as
they may be due to their standardized interface (SQL), they perform
much worse then a dedicated solution. And if I were to use a
relational database, I would probably scale out instead of up. You
might find ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2004-107.pdf an
interesting read.
Jochem
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
