Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:27:22 +0100 From: Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Martin <list@manuelmartini.it> Subject: Re: FreeBSD mysql Benchmark on 4BSD/ULE scheduler and i386/amd64 Message-ID: <330A1347-2309-417E-83B5-5B2CE005B9C8@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070313214559.GB13079@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070313154729.1ec6abb7@DELOREAN.manuelmartini.it> <20070313194206.GA5957@crodrigues.org> <20070313195756.GA11679@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070313211908.59de6504@DELOREAN.manuelmartini.it> <20070313214559.GB13079@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 13, 2007, at 22:45, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> I used sql-bench >> /usr/ports/databases/mysql50-server/work/mysql-5.0.33/sql-bench/ >> (at this time) >> the default Makefile of port have "--without-bench" options so u >> need >> to make manually > > Hmm. This seems to be a single-user test, so while it's presumably > testing some relevant basic ingredients of database performance it's > probably not a realistic measure of server performance. i.e. if you > really only have a maximum of one client accessing your database then > your 4-core system is being more than 75% wasted :) Sorry, couldn't resist... This being mysql, the number of processors isn't going to matter much, no matter how many connections you have. Mysql doesn't scale very well to multiple cpu's. I've had my doubts about this "benchmark" from the beginning of this thread, I don't see the point of benchmarks using mysql - especially if it's not even clear whether myIsam or Innodb was used. If this benchmark means anything, I'm sure there are benchmarks that better suit the purpose (with the exception of benchmarking mysql performance for a single connection). What are we actually trying to benchmark here? In my experience mysql as a database accepts invalid data, doesn't comply to the SQL standards much and isn't very fast at real-life database queries - among other things. It doesn't compare[1] to a tuned PostgreSQL database, which I think is a considerably more interesting benchmark. And of course that would include multiple simultaneous connections. Not to say that PostgreSQL is the ultimate benchmark instead of mysql, just a better one. Of course they both have their uses, but IMO mysql is loosing terrain fast. [1] I really mean it doesn't compare. PostgreSQL provides more (and IMHO better) features, and can be faster under the right circumstances (usually complex queries or concurrent writes). It also scales almost linearly to the number of cpu's, provided there are enough simultaneous connections. -- Alban Hertroys Priest to alien: "We want to know, is there a higher being?". Alien: "Well, actually that's why we're here, we're sheer out of virgins". !DSPAM:74,45f741509413780612645!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?330A1347-2309-417E-83B5-5B2CE005B9C8>