MySQL regressions: update-nonindex vs InnoDB

I started to look at CPU overheads in MyRocks and upstream InnoDB. While I am happy to file bugs for MyRocks as they are likely to be fixed, I am not sure how much energy I want to put into proper bug reports for upstream InnoDB. So I will just write blog posts about them for now.

I created flamegraphs while running sysbench with cached databases (more likely to be CPU bound) and the problem here occurs on an 8-core PN53 where sysbench was run with 1 thread. Here I use perf record -e cycles to collect data for flamegraphs and then I focus on the percentage of samples in a given function (and its callees) as a proxy for CPU overhead.

The flamegraphs are here.

The workload here is the update-nonindex microbenchmark. The throughput for a release relative to MySQL 5.6.51 is -> (QPS for $version) / (QPS for 5.6.51). The results below show that 8.0.37 gets about 62% of the QPS relative to 5.6.51.
  • 0.86 in 5.7.44
  • 0.79 in 8.0.11
  • 0.67 in 8.0.28
  • 0.62 in 8.0.37
From the numbers above there will soon be a release that only gets 50% of the QPS relative to 5.6.51. From the flamegraphs there is time spent in purge, networking and processing update statements. I focus on the time spent processing update statements. The percentage of samples (a proxy for CPU time) in mysqld_stmt_execute and its callees is:
  • 32.77% in 5.6.51 from ~17% in mysql_update and ~12% from trans_commit_stmt
  • 65.89% in 5.7.44 from ~39% in Sql_cmd_update::execute and ~22% from trans_commit_stmt
  • 67.30% in 8.0.28 from ~38% in Sql_cmd_dml::execute and ~23% from trans_commit_stmt
  • 67.97% in 8.0.37 from ~40% in Sql_cmd_dml::execute and ~21% from trans_commit_stmt

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 8, 2024 at 4:23 AM

    For comparisons, it might be more useful to use https://github.com/brendangregg/FlameGraph/blob/master/difffolded.pl

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark CallaghanAugust 8, 2024 at 7:55 AM

      Sometimes I use that but it is only useful when function names don't change much and they change a lot from 5.6 to 8.0. I have done a bit of editing in the past to fix small changes in function names when trying to use difffolded.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fixing bug 109595 makes MySQL almost 4X faster on the Insert Benchmark

Image
MySQL 8.0.35 includes a fix for bug 109595  and with that fix the QPS is almost 4X larger on the read+write benchmark steps compared to MySQL 8.0.34. Thank you to MySQL for fixing this quickly. I reported the bug in January of 2023. I have been aware of the performance problem for years, but didn't spend time debugging it until this year. I assume this problem was limited to InnoDB because I did not see problems with MyRocks. The chart below shows relative QPS which is (QPS for MySQL 8.0.35) / (QPS for MySQL 8.0.34). When the value is larger than 1.0 then MySQL 8.0.35 is faster than 8.0.34. And below the relative QPS is almost 4.0 on the read+write benchmark steps: q100, q500, q1000. The Insert Benchmark is explained here .
Read more

Postgres versions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 vs sysbench with a medium server

Image
This provides additional results for Postgres versions 11 through 16 vs Sysbench on a medium server. My previous post is here . The goal is to document how performance changes over time with a focus on CPU overheads. tl;dr Postgres avoids performance regressions from old to new versions. This is excellent. Postgres 16.0 is mostly faster than 11.21 on read-only benchmark steps Postgres 16.0 and 11.21 have similar throughput on read-write and write-only benchmark steps Builds I compiled Postgres 11.21, 12.16, 13.12, 14.9, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4 and 16.0. The builds are named  o3_native_lto  which is shorthand for using: -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto. Benchmark I used sysbench and my usage is  explained here . Postgres was configured to cache all tables. This benchmark used a c2-standard-30 server from GCP with 15 cores, hyperthreads disabled, 120G of RAM, Ubuntu 22.04 and 1.5TB of NVMe SSD with XFS (SW RAID 0 over 4 local devices). The benchmark is run with 8 clients and 4 table with 2
Read more

Postgres vs MySQL: the impact of CPU overhead on performance

Image
This post documents how MySQL and Postgres performance has changed over time using sysbench. It compares QPS for Postgres 11.21 vs MySQL 5.6.21 and then Postgres 16.0 vs MySQL 8.0.34. The focus here is on CPU overhead and for that a workload that is low-concurrency, CPU-bound and cached is sufficient. However a full comparison would also include results for workloads with more concurrency and workloads that are IO-bound. The benchmark was explained in a series of posts - see  part 1 ,  part 2 ,  part 3 ,  part 4  and part 5  and the results here are from my small server. Usually I avoid direct comparisons between Postgres and MySQL but I am doing this because I care about the future of MySQL and the CPU regressions in it over time have become a problem. tl;dr Postgres 11.21 and MySQL 5.6.21 have similar QPS on most sysbench tests Postgres 16.0 gets much more QPS than MySQL 8.0.34 on most sysbench tests The problem for MySQL is new CPU overhead Results The spreadsheet with all of the nu
Read more