I can't find anything like that- It would be nice to know how my setup/server compares to other servers of the same or similar
ability.
-- Adam Goldstein White Wolf Networks http://whitewlf.net
On Feb 16, 2004, at 1:52 AM, Chris Nolan wrote:
Ahh, the infamous JDBC benchmark. :-)
There's been much commentary on this in the past. There are some things to consider:
1. The native APIs for each DB will be faster. 2. The DB, App Server and Web Server were all on one box. 3. I'm not sure if the MySQL JDBC driver supported the NamedPipeFactory class at the time those benchmarks were taken. If it didn't, then what you are seeing is an upper-bound imposed by I/O restrictions. 4. In MySQL 4.1.1, InnoDB is able to further benefit from the query cache, as it can now use it outside of autocommit mode. 5. This was done on Windows - scalability may be different on different operating systems (Linux 2.6 and FreeBSD 5.2 are likely to be much better). 6. Interestingly, the performance of MySQL dropped by two thirds when the query cache was disabled - this sounds a bit weird as none of the other databases have this sort of mechanism in place yet performed better than 1/3 of the level of MySQL. 7. The JDBC driver has improved in performance since this test, across the board. 8. MySQL 4.1.1 adds vastly improved FULLTEXT capabilities as well as nested queries. These two additions may be of great benefit to some applications (and basing development on MySQL 4.1.x may result in being able to ship around the time 4.1 is declared production ready depending on the development time involved).
I'm not sure if all aspects of this benchmark have been discussed.
Heikki has said that the performance of MySQL shouldn't have changed
between 4.0.0 and 4.0.16 (4.0.16 was the current version when I asked).
The fact that the query cache being turned off caused such a large
performance drop and that MySQL scaled so closely to Oracle even though
the two engines have such different workings points to the limit in this
case being the JDBC element of the test.
As I've said in other threads, I can't wait for MySQL AB to release
their new benchmarks - it will hopefully give us a simple, definitive
source for comparison across architectures, operating systems and access
methods.
Regards,
Chris
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 15:08, Daniel Kasak wrote:Rodrigo Galindez wrote:List, Is there a site where I can see performance benchmarks on mySQL vs. MS SQL Server 2000 ? We plan to migrate a database that's now running under SQL Server 2000 to mySQL, because of online hosting costs, but our boss is not so sure of doing that, he feels "safe" working under SQL Server 2000. Sorry is this is a newbie question, this is my first work mySQL. Cheers,http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp Click on the links for graphs.
-- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au
______________________________________________________________________ -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
