3 ms·

> Proprietary databases have found their niche with qualitatively higher performance and throughput -- often 10-100x -- than the best open source has to offer o

> Proprietary databases have found their niche with qualitatively higher performance and throughput -- often 10-100x -- than the best open source has to offer on the same hardware footprint. This is not true in general. It depends on the workload. Here's an example: MySQL 8.0 is benchmarked at over 1M QPS on I/O bound reads using Optane SSDs. [1] You would need to show that proprietary software hits 10-100M QPS for this workload and hardware configuration. Oracle and SQL Server are often faster because they have better query planning but it's not orders of magnitude. [1] http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/posts/mysql-performance-1m-iobound-qps-with-80-ga-on-intel-optane-ssd.html http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/posts/mysql-performance-1m-iobo...

jandrewrogers 6y ago
This really isn't comparing against Oracle or SQL Server, which are both legacy architectures. And you don't need Optane SSDs; people do better than that with cheap NVMe JBODs like you get on EC2. Also, something is only "I/O bound" if it is literally running at the theoretical limits of the storage hardware. And even that doesn't imply another database couldn't drive much more workload with the same theoretical bandwidth; many popular databases employ architectures that unnecessarily burn storage bandwidth. It is pretty rare for these days for a modern database engine to be I/O bound in a storage sense, even with cheap solid-state storage. Certainly not for fast-twitch query workloads. For most data models and workloads, the bottleneck is either memory or network bandwidth if you are doing everything else right. MySQL isn't typically held up as a paragon of query performance. It is solidly middle of the road. It is part of a generation of architectures that can't get anywhere close to current high-performance architectures. Every database architecture suffers this fate as they get older.
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  Right, I realized I put in the Oracle comparison which was beside the point but decided not to edit it out.

jandrewrogers 6y ago

This really isn't comparing against Oracle or SQL Server, which are both legacy architectures. And you don't need Optane SSDs; people do better than that with cheap NVMe JBODs like you get on EC2. Also, something is only "I/O bound" if it is literally running at the theoretical limits of the storage hardware. And even that doesn't imply another database couldn't drive much more workload with the same theoretical bandwidth; many popular databases employ architectures that unnecessarily burn storage bandwidth. It is pretty rare for these days for a modern database engine to be I/O bound in a storage sense, even with cheap solid-state storage. Certainly not for fast-twitch query workloads. For most data models and workloads, the bottleneck is either memory or network bandwidth if you are doing everything else right. MySQL isn't typically held up as a paragon of query performance. It is solidly middle of the road. It is part of a generation of architectures that can't get anywhere close to current high-performance architectures. Every database architecture suffers this fate as they get older.

hodgesrm 6y ago
Right, I realized I put in the Oracle comparison which was beside the point but decided not to edit it out.