3 ms·

Percona recently released benchmark results comparing innodb to TokuDB: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/04/28/detailed-review-of-tokutek-storage-engine

by smokinn 18y ago

Percona recently released benchmark results comparing innodb to TokuDB: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/04/28/detailed-review-of-tokutek-storage-engine/ http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/04/28/detailed-revi... The take-away is that TokuDB has a lot of promise but on CPU bound workloads a lot of work still needs to be done.

jteo 18y ago
Apparently it's not ACID compliant at this point in time.
- jteo 18y ago
  My first impression: Compressed Indexes, New Index structure that allows sequential I/O read/write to disk of indexes, making indexes cheap. Cheap indexes = many indexes = improved query performance.
  - smanek 18y ago
    If that's the case, then this would be a much smaller improvement for DB's that can be stored entirely in-memory or on SSD, right? I think that most small db's are mostly in memory, and most large ones will be on SSD soon, so do you think that this will have a smaller impact on those use cases?
    - jteo 18y ago
      For really large databases, SSDs aren't cost effective (think multi-terabyte). For the smaller sized databases, most will prefer a hybrid SSD-RAID solution(like Sun's storage appliances) for cost again. Toku is targeting the niche of people who 1. Don't give a damm about ACID. 2. Can't afford hybrid SSD solutions. Toku's indexing technology would be worthwhile at the higher end also, and people with multi-terabytes of information at that end usually use a database as a persistence backend rather than a ACID RDBMS. (think FACEBOOK or your-next-large-startup). Those with a need for ACID, are already running Oracle (which lacks this technology AFAIK). I sense an Oracle-buy-me exit strategy.
- lisper 18y ago
  ACID compliance is scheduled to be released later this year.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
ntoshev 18y ago
The tests talk solely about read performance and not transaction throughput. I don't believe write performance can be increased so dramatically, especially not just using a cache-friendly data structure.

by smokinn 18y ago

jteo 18y ago

Apparently it's not ACID compliant at this point in time.

jteo 18y ago
My first impression: Compressed Indexes, New Index structure that allows sequential I/O read/write to disk of indexes, making indexes cheap. Cheap indexes = many indexes = improved query performance.
- smanek 18y ago
  If that's the case, then this would be a much smaller improvement for DB's that can be stored entirely in-memory or on SSD, right? I think that most small db's are mostly in memory, and most large ones will be on SSD soon, so do you think that this will have a smaller impact on those use cases?
  - jteo 18y ago
    For really large databases, SSDs aren't cost effective (think multi-terabyte). For the smaller sized databases, most will prefer a hybrid SSD-RAID solution(like Sun's storage appliances) for cost again. Toku is targeting the niche of people who 1. Don't give a damm about ACID. 2. Can't afford hybrid SSD solutions. Toku's indexing technology would be worthwhile at the higher end also, and people with multi-terabytes of information at that end usually use a database as a persistence backend rather than a ACID RDBMS. (think FACEBOOK or your-next-large-startup). Those with a need for ACID, are already running Oracle (which lacks this technology AFAIK). I sense an Oracle-buy-me exit strategy.
lisper 18y ago
ACID compliance is scheduled to be released later this year.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

ntoshev 18y ago

The tests talk solely about read performance and not transaction throughput. I don't believe write performance can be increased so dramatically, especially not just using a cache-friendly data structure.