Finally I was able to run PBXT 1.0.11 pre-GA in tpcc-like workload, apparently there was bug with did not allow me to get the result earlier, and I am happy to see that PBXT team managed it.
For initial runs I took tpcc 100 warehouses ( about 10GB of data) which fully fits into memory (32 GB on server),
and compared 1 and 16 users in MySQL-5.1.46/PBXT and Percona Server / XtraDB – 5.1.45-rel10.2. As workload is totally memory based it will show how PBXT scales in CPU-bond cases on 16 cores systems.
As storage system it was Intel SSD X25-M card.
While full results and config are on Wiki:
Interesting to see that in case with 1 user the maximal throughput in PBXT is about 1.5x better XtraDB, but
there periodical drops which are very similar to periodical drops in InnoDB without adaptive checkpointing, and I guess it is also related to checkpoint activity.
The final results are also better for PBXT: 5785.567 TpmC vs 4905.967 TpmC ( XtraDB)
For 16 threads final result is: 26129.350 TpmC for PBXT and 29485.518 TpmC for XtraDB , and from the graph you can see that the maximal throughput is about identical, while PBXT spends more time in drops area. Again it looks like PBXT are not fully keeping up with checkpoint activity and I am looking PBXT addresses this problem also. Beside this issue PBXT looks pretty good and in next round I am going to run IO intensive workloads.
Percona’s widely read Percona Data Performance blog highlights our expertise in enterprise-class software, support, consulting and managed services solutions for both MySQL® and MongoDB® across traditional and cloud-based platforms. The decades of experience represented by our consultants is found daily in numerous and relevant blog posts.
Besides specific database help, the blog also provides notices on upcoming events and webinars.
Want to get weekly updates listing the latest blog posts? Subscribe to our blog now! Submit your email address below and we’ll send you an update every Friday at 1pm ET.