Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
Hi!
Sorry for delayed answer - I was on vacations...
On Dec 08, Uros Kotnik wrote:
OK, I will give you more details.
Table CDS, have 1,053,794 rows, FT index on title,
Data 67,646 KB, Index 70,401 KB
Table ARTISTS, Rows 292,330, FT on name,
Data 8,096 KB
Index 17,218 KB
Table TRACKS, rows 13,841,930, FT on title
Data 625,360 KB
Index 646,672 KB
ft_min_word_len = 3
key_buffer_size 786432000
Explain for both SQLs gives same info :
table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
artists fulltext PRIMARY,ft_name ft_name 0 1 Using where
cds fulltext PRIMARY,artistIndex,ft_title ft_title 0 1 Using where
tracks ref PRIMARY,artistIndex PRIMARY 4 cds.cdId 13 Using where
Time for first SQL : 21 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music mix 2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Time for second SQL : 1 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title
FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND
MATCH ( artists.name ) AGAINST ( 'madonna' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'music' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'mix' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( '2001' )
Assuming,
SELECT @N=COUNT(*) FROM cds WHERE MATCH title AGAINST ('music');
SELECT @M=COUNT(*) FROM cds WHERE MATCH title AGAINST ('mix');
SELECT @K=COUNT(*) FROM cds WHERE MATCH title AGAINST ('2001');
SELECT @L=COUNT(*) FROM cds WHERE MATCH title AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001' IN BOOLEAN
MODE);
The first query will do N+M+K index lookups and read L rows from the
disk.
The second query will do N index lookups and read N rows from the disk.
Thus, if (N+M+K) is much greater than N (it usually is)
and L is close to N (it is usually not), than first query should be much
slower. Typically L is less than min(N,M,K), thus the goal is to reduce
the number of row reads.
I agree this optimization is not the best for all situations,
optimizing this type of queries is in the todo.
btw, it could be that my guess about the slowness was wrong :)
Compare these N,M,K,L numbers yourself.
Regards,
Sergei
--
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Sergei Golubchik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Senior Software Developer
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Osnabrueck, Germany
___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
OK I tried this, '+music +mix +2001' instead of this 'music mix 2001'
IN BOOLEAN MODE and the SQL time is the same ~21 sec.
select artists.name , cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where
MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and
MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE) and
artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid = tracks.artistid
AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
Do you have some explanation, why is this so much slower than this :
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title
FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND
MATCH ( artists.name ) AGAINST ( 'madonna' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'music' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'mix' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( '2001' )
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Gadd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 21:50
To: Uros Kotnik; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and
full-text searches
Uros Kotnik wrote:
It makes sense, but Sergei G. said :
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
I guess that for my DB I can't expect satisfied in boolena mode
times
?
But also when searching without in boolean mode and include search
criteria from TRACKS table, 13,841,930 rows , like AND MATCH (
tracks.title) AGAINST ('remix')
I get ~10 sec. times.
Am I doing something wrong or this results are correct for this amount
of data, I would be satisfied with 0.5 - 1 sec. times
If I'm not mistaken, IN BOOLEAN MODE simply changes the parser
logic. It tells MySql to process the special characters, like
+-*. I don't think it's the IN BOOLEAN MODE that is causing
the slow query, but the fact that you are looking for the phrase.
If you were to do
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Then you'd probably still get the fast search time, since the query
simply requires all three words. MySql can resolve this just using
the index.
In your example, the BOOLEAN MODE for
MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
isn't doing anything special, since you aren't using any
special chars to modify the search expression.
--
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]
RE: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
OK I tried this, so '+music +mix +2001' instead of this 'music mix
2001' and the SQL time is the same ~21 sec.
select artists.name , cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where
MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Gadd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 21:50
To: Uros Kotnik; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and
full-text searches
Uros Kotnik wrote:
It makes sense, but Sergei G. said :
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
I guess that for my DB I can't expect satisfied in boolena mode
times
?
But also when searching without in boolean mode and include search
criteria from TRACKS table, 13,841,930 rows , like AND MATCH (
tracks.title) AGAINST ('remix')
I get ~10 sec. times.
Am I doing something wrong or this results are correct for this amount
of data, I would be satisfied with 0.5 - 1 sec. times
If I'm not mistaken, IN BOOLEAN MODE simply changes the parser
logic. It tells MySql to process the special characters, like
+-*. I don't think it's the IN BOOLEAN MODE that is causing
the slow query, but the fact that you are looking for the phrase.
If you were to do
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Then you'd probably still get the fast search time, since the query
simply requires all three words. MySql can resolve this just using
the index.
In your example, the BOOLEAN MODE for
MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
isn't doing anything special, since you aren't using any
special chars to modify the search expression.
--
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]
RE: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
OK, I will give you more details.
MySQL ver. : 4.0.16
CPU : 2xCelleron 1000 1GB RAM
Table CDS, have 1,053,794 rows, FT index on title,
Data 67,646 KB, Index 70,401 KB
Table ARTISTS, Rows 292,330, FT on name,
Data 8,096 KB
Index 17,218 KB
Table TRACKS, rows 13,841,930, FT on title
Data 625,360 KB
Index 646,672 KB
ft_min_word_len = 3
key_buffer_size 786432000
Explain for both SQLs gives same info :
table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
artists fulltext PRIMARY,ft_name ft_name 0 1 Using where
cds fulltext PRIMARY,artistIndex,ft_title ft_title 0 1 Using where
tracks ref PRIMARY,artistIndex PRIMARY 4 cds.cdId 13 Using where
Last results that I sent are not correct because I forgot to include one
more join, artists.artistid = cds.artistid, bad oversight I know
These are the new results :
Time for first SQL : 21 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna'IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title)AGAINST ('music mix 2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Time for second SQL : 1 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title
FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND
MATCH ( artists.name ) AGAINST ( 'madonna' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'music' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'mix' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( '2001' )
One more thing that I noticed in last SQL, when I change, in FROM
clause, positions of tables like this : FROM artists, tracks, cds,
instead FROM artists, cds, tracks I get time of 1.9 sec. instead 1
sec. ?
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Golubchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 00:02
To: Uros Kotnik
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and
full-text searches
Hi!
On Nov 27, Uros Kotnik wrote:
Executing this SQL, takes ~5 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('mix')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('2001')
limit 1001
and this, ~40 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music mix 2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
limit 1001
Same result but the speed difference is quite a different, why is that
?
What does EXPLAIN show for both queries ?
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
Regards,
Sergei
--
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Sergei Golubchik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Senior Software Developer
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Osnabrueck, Germany
___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
OK, I will give you more details.
MySQL ver. : 4.0.16
CPU : 2xCelleron 1000 1GB RAM
Table CDS, have 1,053,794 rows, FT index on title,
Data 67,646 KB, Index 70,401 KB
Table ARTISTS, Rows 292,330, FT on name,
Data 8,096 KB
Index 17,218 KB
Table TRACKS, rows 13,841,930, FT on title
Data 625,360 KB
Index 646,672 KB
ft_min_word_len = 3
key_buffer_size 786432000
Explain for both SQLs gives same info :
table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
artists fulltext PRIMARY,ft_name ft_name 0 1 Using where
cds fulltext PRIMARY,artistIndex,ft_title ft_title 0 1 Using where
tracks ref PRIMARY,artistIndex PRIMARY 4 cds.cdId 13 Using where
Last results that I sent are not correct because I forgot to include one
more join, artists.artistid = cds.artistid, bad oversight I know
These are the new results :
Time for first SQL : 21 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna'IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title)AGAINST ('music mix 2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Time for second SQL : 1 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title
FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND
MATCH ( artists.name ) AGAINST ( 'madonna' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'music' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( 'mix' ) AND
MATCH ( cds.title ) AGAINST ( '2001' )
One more thing that I noticed in last SQL, when I change, in FROM
clause, positions of tables like this : FROM artists, tracks, cds,
instead FROM artists, cds, tracks I get time of 1.9 sec. instead 1
sec. ?
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Golubchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 00:02
To: Uros Kotnik
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and
full-text searches
Hi!
On Nov 27, Uros Kotnik wrote:
Executing this SQL, takes ~5 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('mix')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('2001')
limit 1001
and this, ~40 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music mix 2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
limit 1001
Same result but the speed difference is quite a different, why is that
?
What does EXPLAIN show for both queries ?
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
Regards,
Sergei
--
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Sergei Golubchik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Senior Software Developer
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Osnabrueck, Germany
___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
Uros Kotnik wrote:
Time for first SQL : 21 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna'IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title)AGAINST ('music mix 2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
In this case, it cannot resolve the query JUST using indexes.
After finding all records in the index where artists.name matches
madonna and title contains all the words music, mix, 2001,
then it must retrieve each record, and examine the title field to
see if the three words are found together in the phrase.
In your other example, it only needs to use the fulltext indexes
to know which records satisfy your query, resulting in MUCH
faster query time.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
It makes sense, but Sergei G. said :
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
I guess that for my DB I can't expect satisfied in boolena mode times
?
But also when searching without in boolean mode and include search
criteria from TRACKS table, 13,841,930 rows , like AND MATCH (
tracks.title) AGAINST ('remix')
I get ~10 sec. times.
Am I doing something wrong or this results are correct for this amount
of data, I would be satisfied with 0.5 - 1 sec. times
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Gadd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 13:17
To: Uros Kotnik; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and
full-text searches
Uros Kotnik wrote:
Time for first SQL : 21 sec.
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna'IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title)AGAINST ('music mix 2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
In this case, it cannot resolve the query JUST using indexes.
After finding all records in the index where artists.name matches
madonna and title contains all the words music, mix, 2001,
then it must retrieve each record, and examine the title field to
see if the three words are found together in the phrase.
In your other example, it only needs to use the fulltext indexes
to know which records satisfy your query, resulting in MUCH
faster query time.
--
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]
Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
Uros Kotnik wrote:
It makes sense, but Sergei G. said :
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
I guess that for my DB I can't expect satisfied in boolena mode times
?
But also when searching without in boolean mode and include search
criteria from TRACKS table, 13,841,930 rows , like AND MATCH (
tracks.title) AGAINST ('remix')
I get ~10 sec. times.
Am I doing something wrong or this results are correct for this amount
of data, I would be satisfied with 0.5 - 1 sec. times
If I'm not mistaken, IN BOOLEAN MODE simply changes the parser
logic. It tells MySql to process the special characters, like
+-*. I don't think it's the IN BOOLEAN MODE that is causing
the slow query, but the fact that you are looking for the phrase.
If you were to do
SELECT artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title FROM artists, cds, tracks
WHERE artists.artistid = cds.artistid AND artists.artistid =
tracks.artistid AND cds.cdid = tracks.cdid AND MATCH (artists.name)
AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND
MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('+music +mix +2001'IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Then you'd probably still get the fast search time, since the query
simply requires all three words. MySql can resolve this just using
the index.
In your example, the BOOLEAN MODE for
MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
isn't doing anything special, since you aren't using any
special chars to modify the search expression.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed difference between boolean full-text searches and full-text searches
Hi!
On Nov 27, Uros Kotnik wrote:
Executing this SQL, takes ~5 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('mix')
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('2001')
limit 1001
and this, ~40 sec.
select artists.name, cds.title, tracks.title from artists, tracks, cds
where artists.artistid = tracks.artistid and cds.cdid = tracks.cdid
and MATCH (artists.name) AGAINST ('madonna' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
and MATCH (cds.title) AGAINST ('music mix 2001' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
limit 1001
Same result but the speed difference is quite a different, why is that ?
What does EXPLAIN show for both queries ?
And are you sure the numbers are correct, the first query - the one
without IN BOOLEAN MODE - is faster ? I would expect the opposite.
Regards,
Sergei
--
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Sergei Golubchik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Senior Software Developer
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Osnabrueck, Germany
___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed difference
: after timing the program that was targeting MySQL on different platforms : the results are (client program running always from the same box that is not : hosting MySQL): : : Windows NT - 25 sec (Intel P-III) : Linux - 27 sec (Intel P-III) : Solaris 2.7 - 1 min 40 sec (Ultra 5) : Solaris 2.7 - 1 min 32 sec (Ultra 10) : : Is there a reasonable explanation why is this happening. : Well, even though you run the same benchmark on the same machine several times, you'll get different results. So we also need to know if adequate iterations have been performed. So the time difference in the first two results aren't that much different at all. The same conclusion is true about the last two, But the slowness of Solaris boxes does impress me. So I believe (i'm not a solaris dude) Ultra is the processor, right? Then we could conclude that pentiums are much more faster then Ultras. Do you aggree? -- Sherzod Ruzmetov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.UltraCgis.com, Consultant 989.774.6265 010010100101010101001100 ++ | There is nothing wrong with your tools.| | But we can make a better one. | ++ - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: Speed difference
With all of the benchmark test I have used the same DB structure, same TABLE structure, and finally same iterations. This probably means that Solaris I/O is really poor, or there is some other explanation (like changing some kernel parameters to get Solaris working well with DB kind of stuff). At the moment I am trying to find out exactly what is the problem. It should not be MySQL itself because the first 2 boxes have different results from the last 2 boxes. This leads me to the conclusion that Solaris is doing something weird with the I/O. Unfortunately, I do not have Solaris 8 to test MySQL in that environment. Note that all the boxes are running the same MySQL version so that could not be the problem (3.23.47). Regards, Nesh Nenad Mijailovic Software Engineer IVSTEL Telecommunications Solutions _ -Original Message- From: Sherzod Ruzmetov aka sherzodR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 11:14 AM To: Nesh Nenad Mijailovic Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: Speed difference : after timing the program that was targeting MySQL on different platforms : the results are (client program running always from the same box that is not : hosting MySQL): : : Windows NT - 25 sec (Intel P-III) : Linux - 27 sec (Intel P-III) : Solaris 2.7 - 1 min 40 sec (Ultra 5) : Solaris 2.7 - 1 min 32 sec (Ultra 10) : : Is there a reasonable explanation why is this happening. : Well, even though you run the same benchmark on the same machine several times, you'll get different results. So we also need to know if adequate iterations have been performed. So the time difference in the first two results aren't that much different at all. The same conclusion is true about the last two, But the slowness of Solaris boxes does impress me. So I believe (i'm not a solaris dude) Ultra is the processor, right? Then we could conclude that pentiums are much more faster then Ultras. Do you aggree? -- Sherzod Ruzmetov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.UltraCgis.com, Consultant 989.774.6265 010010100101010101001100 ++ | There is nothing wrong with your tools.| | But we can make a better one. | ++ - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Speed difference
Nesh, With all of the benchmark test I have used the same DB structure, same TABLE structure, and finally same iterations. This probably means that Solaris I/O is really poor, or there is some other explanation (like changing some kernel parameters to get Solaris working well with DB kind of stuff). At the moment I am trying to find out exactly what is the problem. It should not be MySQL itself because the first 2 boxes have different results from the last 2 boxes. This leads me to the conclusion that Solaris is doing something weird with the I/O. Unfortunately, I do not have Solaris 8 to test MySQL in that environment. Note that all the boxes are running the same MySQL version so that could not be the problem (3.23.47). Interesting statistics! What else were the m/user, m/tasking OpSys doing at the time? How much 'tuning' of the configs/dbs had taken place in each case? Can you compare the results without the 'I/O', by using native-MySQL on each server, locally? Regards, =dn - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: Speed difference
The boxes running the MySQL were isolated from other users so there was no activity on them while I was performing the benchmark tests. There was no tuning - I just installed the MySQL from their binary packages, that is I was using the default config files (hoping that they are the same - I will check that now). One of the tests was done locally on the Solaris box (Ultra 5) giving almost the same result - around 1 min 25 secs. Just a small improvement over the TCP/IP connection. I suppose that the next step is to get the config file to something that will give me better performance on the Solaris box, but as I said there was nothing changed in the configuration of the MySQL. I just used the default configuration setup. _ Nesh, With all of the benchmark test I have used the same DB structure, same TABLE structure, and finally same iterations. This probably means that Solaris I/O is really poor, or there is some other explanation (like changing some kernel parameters to get Solaris working well with DB kind of stuff). At the moment I am trying to find out exactly what is the problem. It should not be MySQL itself because the first 2 boxes have different results from the last 2 boxes. This leads me to the conclusion that Solaris is doing something weird with the I/O. Unfortunately, I do not have Solaris 8 to test MySQL in that environment. Note that all the boxes are running the same MySQL version so that could not be the problem (3.23.47). Interesting statistics! What else were the m/user, m/tasking OpSys doing at the time? How much 'tuning' of the configs/dbs had taken place in each case? Can you compare the results without the 'I/O', by using native-MySQL on each server, locally? Regards, =dn - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
