I have mentioned few times Innodb caches data in pages and even if you have working set consisting of relatively few rows your working set in terms of pages can be rather large. Now I came to do a little benchmark to show it in practice. I’m using standard “sbtest” with 10mil rows with data file of 2247098368 which gives us 224 bytes of gross storage per row, including all overhead etc. Actual row
size in this table is smaller but lets use this number for our math. For benchmark I’m using set number of random IDs which are repeatedly selected in random order, which would illustrate data set with
some randomly distributed “hot” rows. I read every row in the set once before timing, so when there is enough memory to cache every single row there should not be any disk reads in benchmark run itself.
I’m using 128M buffer pool for this test, which should fit roughly 500K of rows 224 bytes in size. Lets see what Benchmark really shows:
Testing 100 out of 10000000 keys 24.79 seconds, 4034.53 lookups per second
Testing 200 out of 10000000 keys 25.66 seconds, 3896.96 lookups per second
Testing 400 out of 10000000 keys 25.03 seconds, 3995.65 lookups per second
Testing 800 out of 10000000 keys 24.40 seconds, 4097.73 lookups per second
Testing 1600 out of 10000000 keys 24.83 seconds, 4026.59 lookups per second
Testing 3200 out of 10000000 keys 25.47 seconds, 3926.65 lookups per second
Testing 6400 out of 10000000 keys 26.51 seconds, 3771.73 lookups per second
Testing 12800 out of 10000000 keys 386.20 seconds, 258.94 lookups per second
Testing 25600 out of 10000000 keys 640.12 seconds, 156.22 lookups per second
Testing 51200 out of 10000000 keys 775.38 seconds, 128.97 lookups per second
Testing 102400 out of 10000000 keys 841.65 seconds, 118.81 lookups per second
As we see in this case database can really fit only somewhere between 6400 and 12800 different rows which is about 1/50 of “projected size”. This number is very close to what I would have estimated –
With 224 bytes per row we have some 70 rows per page so with random distribution you would expect up to 70 times data which have to be fetched to the database than you need.
I’m wondering if any over storage engine can show better results in such benchmark. Falcon with plans for row cache would fair better, so I would expect better results with PBXT. I also should check with
smaller page sizes available in Percona Server and my expectation is with 4K page size I can fit 4x more distinct rows in my cache.
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.