Some Corrections and Additions to my Simple Key-Value Store Tests
Before we get started, here's a link to the first post.
This is the first follow-up to my post
on a simple test of KVS alternatives. To recap, I tested a simple
single table schema in MySQL using the NDB and InnoDB storage engines.
To have a Key-Value store to compare with, I did the same test in
MongoDB. All tests were done of the same system, an 8-core AMD Linux box
with 16 Gb RAM. The tests consisted of reading 1.000.000 rows, out of
the total 105.000.000 in the table, distributed over 100 threads 10
times, a total of 10.000.000 rows read then. The test program I use
makes sure that the same random ID's of the table are reused each time
and the same are used for all servers.
Now, firstly, after some checking I realized that I had not fully cached the InnoDB engine, so it was doing a certain, small, amount of disk I/O still. I fixed this and the number now looks like this:
- MongoDB - 110.000 rows read per second.
- InnoDB - 39.000 rows read per second.
- NDB - 32.000 rows read per second.
But I have another test result today! I realized that although I no big fan of the query cache, I should be able to use that here too. And I don't need that a big a cache, as I am only reading some 1.000.000 rows. So off I went, turned on and tuned in, without dropping out, the query cache and ran my test again. I soon realized one thing: Warming up the query cache was going to be real slow. But warming up MongoDB is just as slow, MongoDB really is targeted for as much as possible in RAM, the disk I/O the do is hardly optimized (they use mmap, so what can you expect). Once the query cache was nice and warm, I ran my benchmark (this was using the mysqld with InnoDB, which matters less as all reads are now done in the query cache). And what I got was about 34.000 rows read per second. This is not a 100% fair comparison of course, as the query cache doesn't need to cache that much (only 1.000.000 queries), but really, it should have been faster than caching in InnoDB, I was a bit disappointed with this and I'll see if I can find the bottleneck somewhere in the code.
But I'm not finished yet. The MEMORY engine and NDB with a few more mysqld servers remains to be tested, as well as Tarantool, the MySQL HANDLER interface and NDBAPI eventually. Not necessarily in that order.
And before closing, if you are wondering, the test program is written in plain C, no C++ or Java or anything or fancy stuff like that. Also, the test program uses proper multi-threading, I do not have multiple processes running around here,
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)