This post is a continuation of my research of TokuDB’s storage engine to understand if it is suitable for timeseries workloads. While inserting LOAD DATA INFILE into an empty table shows great results for TokuDB, what’s more interesting is seeing some realistic workloads. So this time let’s take a look at the INSERT benchmark.
Search Results for: default_table_type inno
After compiling Percona Server with TokuDB, of course I wanted to compare InnoDB performance vs TokuDB. I have a particular workload I’m interested in testing – it is an insert-intensive workload (which is TokuDB’s strong suit) with some roll-up aggregation, which should produce updates in-place (I will use INSERT .. ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE statements […]
Recently I wrote about InnoDB scalability on 24-core box, and we made research of scalability problems in sysbench write workload (benchmark emulates intensive insert/delete queries). By our results the problem is in concurrency on rollback segment, which by default is single and all transactions are serialized accessing to segment. Fortunately InnoDB internally has mechanism to […]
One of our customers gave me a chance to run some benchmarks on 24-core (intel cpu based) server, and I could not miss it and ran few CPU-bound tasks there. The goal of benchmarks was investigation of InnoDB-plugin and XtraDB scalability in CPU-bound load.
I mentioned earlier that IO scheduler CFQ coming by default in RedHat / CentOS 5.x may be not so good for MySQL. And yesterday one customer reported that just changing cfq to noop solved their InnoDB IO problems. I ran tpcc scripts against XtraDB on our Dell PowerEdge R900 server (16 cores, 8 disks in […]