Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mongodb-user
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion MongoDB benchmarks
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Eliot Horowitz  
View profile  
 More options Sep 14 2010, 11:17 am
From: Eliot Horowitz <eliothorow...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:17:59 -0400
Local: Tues, Sep 14 2010 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [mongodb-user] Re: MongoDB benchmarks
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Not sure when - may look soon.
But are you sure its relevant? According to Mark's graphs, you need
about 64 concurrent reads before it gets in the way.
And even then it flattens out, doesn't really drop off very much
(maybe at 120 concurrent reads)
At that level - he's doing around 60k reads/second.
Are you going to be doing that kind of read levels?
Object size is also a pretty significant factor for total throughput.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM, diptamay <dipta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are looking at getting 8 core servers (with hyper-threading enabled
> - taking them to 16 virtual cores) for MongoDB, so the benchmarks/
> mutex contention are of specific importance. Any ideas by when you
> could have those optimizations in place.

> -Diptamay

> On Sep 14, 11:08 am, Eliot Horowitz <eliothorow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes - there are places where under massive concurrency there can be
>> mutex contention issues.
>> Should be pretty easy to fix for those cases though.

>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM, diptamay <dipta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The numbers are about reading/storing K-V data. So, yes benchmarks
>> > were geared toward that case specifically. What I am more interested
>> > in, is the mutex contention issue. Any ideas on that?

>> > -Diptamay

>> > On Sep 14, 10:48 am, Eliot Horowitz <eliothorow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The benchmarks are valid - though are for a very specific case (hence
>> >> why he says silly).
>> >> On very simple cases like that - speed is more of factor of lots of
>> >> tiny code optimizations which we haven't done yet.
>> >> Mysql is mature and is highly optimized so it shouldn't be too
>> >> shocking that you can make it perform very well for some cases.

>> >> We've been focused on more real world performance considerations that
>> >> our users are seeing.

>> >> For example - because you can embed objects in mongo, you can avoid
>> >> doing a join in mysql.
>> >> So you may want to benchmark a single document load in mongo where you
>> >> have to load 10 rows in mysql.

>> >> We definitely will be doing more optimization to get those kind of
>> >> numbers higher, but you need to look at performance as a whole.

>> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, diptamay <dipta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hello

>> >> > I was just going through the following blog posts:
>> >> >http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/09/mysql-versus-mongodb-yet-another-...
>> >> >http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/09/mysql-versus-mongodb-fetch-by-sec...
>> >> >http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/09/mysql-versus-mongodb-update-perfo...

>> >> > And, as per the numbers, MongoDB doesn't give great numbers compared
>> >> > to MySQL (used to store/retrieve K-V data). Additionally, the author
>> >> > claims that there are mutex contentions when running the tests on a 16-
>> >> > core server.

>> >> > I was just wondering, what the MongoDB team feels about it, like are
>> >> > the numbers valid? Were the tests done in the best way as it could
>> >> > have been done? Ideas/thoughts on the mutex contention issue raised?

>> >> > Cheers!
>> >> > Diptamay

>> >> > --
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mongodb-user" group.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to mongodb-user@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mongodb-user+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/mongodb-user?hl=en.

>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mongodb-user" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to mongodb-user@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mongodb-user+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/mongodb-user?hl=en.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mongodb-user" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mongodb-user@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mongodb-user+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mongodb-user?hl=en.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google