MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
1–10 of 148 posts
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#2Whenever one sees a claim about new database technology outperforming standbys like MySQL and Postgres by factors of 10x or more, it's a good idea to suspect the out-of-the-box configuration isn't really durable. What kills write performance in databases is the time it takes to write to disk, not the software overhead.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#3Whenever one sees a claim about new database technology outperforming standbys like MySQL and Postgres by factors of 10x or more, it's a good idea to suspect the out-of-the-box configuration isn't really durable. What kills write performance in databases is the time it takes to write to disk, not the software overhead.
Or in the case of a lot of vendors we won't mention - blatant lies.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#4Whenever one sees a claim about new database technology outperforming standbys like MySQL and Postgres by factors of 10x or more, it's a good idea to suspect the out-of-the-box configuration isn't really durable. What kills write performance in databases is the time it takes to write to disk, not the software overhead.
Or if they use a global write lock.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#5When someone writes on their intro "... and now in return I want to waste your time a bit." it's a sign that someone isn't being serious.
Domas' main criticism is that our video, http://vimeo.com/44087431, uses a MySQL with standard defaults. Since tuning a database is by definition a custom process, we wanted to demonstrate what performance you'd get "out of the box." The video speaks for itself. MemSQL can push 80k/sec vs 3.5k/sec for MySQL on EC2.
Domas actually demonstrates MemSQL's robust durability controls: he bounds MemSQL to disk. If you want to throw an anchor behind a speed boat, you can do it, though we don't recommend it.
Even Domas agrees his article isn't serious: "I do agree, that its execution speeds for table scans are not bad – 8M rows scanned a second (for SELECT COUNT(*) query) from single thread is sure a great achievement."
If that's the highest praise I can get from Domas, I can live with it.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#6[deleted]
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#7Whenever one sees a claim about new database technology outperforming standbys like MySQL and Postgres by factors of 10x or more, it's a good idea to suspect the out-of-the-box configuration isn't really durable. What kills write performance in databases is the time it takes to write to disk, not the software overhead.
For what it's worth SQL Server doesn't meet his definition of "durable." It writes a transaction log and then writes those transactions to disk on a checkpoint [1]. Typically, that checkpoint automagically happens, but you can also force it to clear the buffer with a "checkpoint" command.
InnoDB also does this, too [2]. I don't know if MemSQL actually has checkpointing or what, but it's just worth noting.
[1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189573.aspx
[2]: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-checkpoints.ht...
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#8When someone writes on their intro "... and now in return I want to waste your time a bit." it's a sign that someone isn't being serious. Domas' main criticism is that our video, http://vimeo.com/44087431 , uses a MySQL with standard defaults. Since tuning a database is by definition a custom process, we wanted to demonstrate what performance you'd get "out of the box." The video speaks for itself. MemSQL can push 80…
For me, the take away from this article is that MemSQL's ACID compliance is half-assed at best, which is a much more damning criticism than using a flawed benchmarking methodology.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#9When someone writes on their intro "... and now in return I want to waste your time a bit." it's a sign that someone isn't being serious. Domas' main criticism is that our video, http://vimeo.com/44087431 , uses a MySQL with standard defaults. Since tuning a database is by definition a custom process, we wanted to demonstrate what performance you'd get "out of the box." The video speaks for itself. MemSQL can push 80…
> Since tuning a database is by definition a custom process, we wanted to demonstrate what performance you'd get "out of the box."
Yes, and Domas was criticizing that as a strawman; as comparing apples to oranges. Since they tailor their defaults to different criteria (e.g. different standards of durability), of course they will perform differently.
The only really valid benchmarks are when you get an expert in each to tune their respective products to optimize for a specific scenario, and see how outperforms who. And then make public exactly what configuration was done to get there.
Re: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
#10When someone writes on their intro "... and now in return I want to waste your time a bit." it's a sign that someone isn't being serious. Domas' main criticism is that our video, http://vimeo.com/44087431 , uses a MySQL with standard defaults. Since tuning a database is by definition a custom process, we wanted to demonstrate what performance you'd get "out of the box." The video speaks for itself. MemSQL can push 80…
I thought his main criticism was that MemSQL isn't durable by default, and that when you enable that it becomes incredibly slow. That's a pretty big deal, and IMO running database benchmarks on an unsafe configuration like this is extremely dishonest.