On 10/20/11 15:31, paul@stripped wrote:
> I'm evaluating MySQL Cluster as a replacement for our current "normal"
> MySQL Server. The current server is processing many "update" queries per
> second, sent by a client application that always stays connected to the
> server. On the other hand, the server is serving "select" queries on the
> same table, using clients that disconnect after each query (i.e.,
> requests coming from a web server, without connection pooling).
> In my evaluation I have observed that MySQL Cluster with two data nodes
> offers a superior "update" performance compared to a MySQL Server
> instance running on identical hardware. However, performance for the
> "select" queries is much worse on MySQL Cluster (using MYSQLD as API).
> Apparently MySQL Cluster has much more "overhead" setting up a session
> (connection). The difference between MySQL Server and MySQL Cluster is
> quite dramatic: In our test set-up MySQL Cluster could only server about
> 65 connect-select-disconnect cycles, whereas MySQL Server can easily
> handle 1000 and more cycles per second. This is quite a show-stopper for
> our purposes...
> Note that all queries are done using the primary key, and all updates
> and selects work on exactly one row. In total our test table contains
> 100,000 rows. The MySQL Server version used to test was 5.1 and MySQL
> Cluster was version 7.2.1 with MySQLD 5.5.
> Does anyone else has the same experience with MySQL Cluster? Is there
> any way to improve this connect-select-disconnect cycles?
> Thanks for your help,
Could you share your my.cnf and maybe your application (that does the SELECT) so
I can test for my self ?