CODEWITHSUNDEEP
mysqlperformanceinnodbcluster-computing
QWJ QWJ
QWJ QWJ

Reputation: 337

MySQL Cluster is much slower than InnoDB

I have a denormalized table product with about 6 million rows (~ 2GB) mainly for lookups. Fields include price, color, unitprice, weight, ...

I have BTREE indexes on color etc. Query conditions are dynamically generated from the Web, such as

select count(*) 
from product 
where color = 1 and price > 5 and price < 100 and weight > 30 ... etc

and

select * 
from product 
where color = 2 and price > 35 and unitprice < 110 
order by weight 
limit 25;

I used to use InnoDB and tried MEMORY tables, and switched to NDB hoping more concurrent queries can be done faster. I have 2 tables with the same schema, indexes, and data. One is InnoDB while the other is NDB. But the results are very disappointing：for the queries mentioned above, InnoDB is like 50 times faster than NDB. It's like 0.8 seocond vs 40 seconds. For this test I was running only a single select query repeatedbly. Both InnoDB and NDB queries are using the same index on color.

I am using mysql-5.1.47 ndb-7.1.5 on a dual Xeon 5506 (8 cores total), 32GB memory running CentOS 5. I set up 2 NDB Data nodes, one MGM node and one MYSQL node on the same box. For each node I allocated like 9GB memory, and also tried MaxNoOfExecutionThreads=8, LockPagesInMainMemory, LockExecuteThreadToCPU and many other config parameters, but no luck. While NDB is running the query, my peak CPU load was only like 200%, i.e., only 2 out of 8 cores were busy. Most of the time it was like 100%. I was using ndbmtd, and verified in the data node log and the LQH threads were indeed spawned. I also tried explain, profiling -- it just showing that Sending data was consuming most of the time. I also went thru some Mysql Cluster tuning documents available online, not very helpful in my case.

Anybody can shed some light on this? Is there any better way to tune an NDB database? Appreciate it!

Upvotes: 2

Views: 6643

Answers (1)

O. Jones
O. Jones

Reputation: 108716

You need to pick the right storage engine for your application.

myISAM -- read frequently / write infrequently. Ideal for data lookups in big tables. Does reasonably well with complex indexes and is quite good for batch reloads.

MEMORY -- good for fast access to relatively small and simple tables.

InnoDB -- good for transaction processing. Also good for a mixed read / write workload.

NDB -- relatively less mature. Good for fault tolerance.

The mySQL server is not inherently multiprocessor software. So adding cores isn't necessarily going to jack up performance. A good host for mySQL is a decent two-core system with plenty of RAM and the fastest disk IO channels and disks you can afford. Do NOT put your mySQL data files on a networked or shared file system, unless you don't care about query performance.

If you're running on Linux issue these two commands (on the machine running the mySQL server) to see whether you're burning all your cpu, or burning all your disk IO:

sar -u 1 10
sar -d 1 10

Your application sounds like a candidate for myISAM. It sounds like you have plenty of hardware. In that case you can build a master server and an automatically replicated slave server But you may be fine with just one server. This will be easier to maintain.

Edit It's eight years latar and this answer is now basically obsolete.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions