4 ms·

Hey can someone from TiDB help me understand the benchmark results you posted comparing 2.0 with 2.1? https://github.com/pingcap/docs/blob/master/benchmark/sys

Hey can someone from TiDB help me understand the benchmark results you posted comparing 2.0 with 2.1? https://github.com/pingcap/docs/blob/master/benchmark/sysbench-v3.md https://github.com/pingcap/docs/blob/master/benchmark/sysben... The main question is this: how large is the dataset created in Sysbench? 16 tables with 10,000,000 pieces of data per table is interesting, but how big are those individual pieces? Morgan said "the expected data volume for TiDB is larger than memory," so does this benchmark actually test the underlying storage, or is it all in-memory? Thanks for any help! Would like to try replicating this if possible in our lab.

morgo 8y ago
Hi Rafuino, send me an email at [firstname]@pingcap.com and I'll connect you with the benchmark author. Just to expand a little bit on this comment: > The expected data volume for TiDB is larger than memory. There is both total data volume, and working set (workload dependent). This point was in regards to some databases use data structures which require the total data to be memory resident. The working set is a longer discussion - it could just be a few percent of the total volume, and some working sets have a "long tail" of cache misses vs. short tail. And it can vary for a B+tree vs. an LSM tree too. RocksDB uses compression which helps a lot. It is not clear in this benchmark if the working set fits entirely in memory. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I will follow up and make sure we do a better job of communicating what is being tested.