3 ms·
Well, the performance under the same conditions was 500KQPS before, so definitely there was an improvement!
by martinml 13y ago
Well, the performance under the same conditions was 500KQPS before, so definitely there was an improvement!
- hahainternet 13y agoRight but if someone showed a similar improvement by adding enough RAM to prevent swapping, would you be impressed? This is what is going on here. They have very much successfully proven that RAM is faster than HDD.
- nailk 13y agoThey have proven that SQL-based storage is faster than NOSQL databases. The poster of the top comment doesn't understand what this topic is about. This is actually a benchmark of InnoDB table access. You can query it using usual SQL-commands. But if you want faster access, you can use memcache API. "Read-only" is also misleading here. This is just a benchmark of get command.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Xorlev 13y ago"They have proven that SQL-based storage is faster than NOSQL databases." Too broad of a statement. 'NoSQL' is an umbrella term, and thus likely has several contenders for a raw QPS metric. The additional step of parsing the query is obviated by statement caching. You're right though, it's simply a benchmark of how fast the query path is to the InnoDB buffer pool. The work is to optimize internal contention. Very impressive results though.
- martinml 13y agoI thought it was a benchmark of the same hardware with 5.6 vs 5.7. I see now that they changed more than that.