<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TPC-H Run on MySQL 5.1 and 6.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/</link>
	<description>Everything about MySQL Performance</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:06:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Teratzul</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-350889</link>
		<dc:creator>Teratzul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-350889</guid>
		<description>Hi. I'm trying to execute the tpc-h queries on a mysql 5.0.27 system. Some of my results are somewhat similar to what you posted while others largely differ. I was wondering if I made a mistake while defining an index or something. Could I have a look at your create table scripts for the tpc-h standard ?

Thanks in advance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi. I&#8217;m trying to execute the tpc-h queries on a mysql 5.0.27 system. Some of my results are somewhat similar to what you posted while others largely differ. I was wondering if I made a mistake while defining an index or something. Could I have a look at your create table scripts for the tpc-h standard ?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martin kersten</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-327971</link>
		<dc:creator>martin kersten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-327971</guid>
		<description>Hi Peter,

Indeed, understanding the implications of a DBMS architecture on the application requirements is one of the hardest DBA tasks. The TPC-H and similar applications are meant to aid in this process, albeit a little. Ideally, a user does not require an extensive DBA course to handle reasonably sized database and its application.

The development in the area of column-stores and main-memory databases is moving at great pace.
Some throw hardware at the problem (Kickfire), others exploit different ways of software layering (Vertica, MonetDB). From an software architecture point of view understanding the pro-s and con-s are highly desirable and benchmark comparisons are a step into this direction.

From your comments on april 22, should i conclude that you don't consider MySQL the premiere choice for datawarehouses?
If it is, did the performance team produce better results on the MySQL versions as presented by Peter at the beginning of this thread, including those beyond the 100GB. What are the tricks and their impact?
I am eager to learn those from the insiders, because the performance of MySQL does not stand out against the fullscale (OLTP +DW) version of MonetDB. Any reference to independent and public available numbers, albeit non-official, are appreciated.

regards, and keep up the good work on database kernels
Martin

ps http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/ for an indication. Numbers are confirmed recently, trends are the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Peter,</p>
<p>Indeed, understanding the implications of a DBMS architecture on the application requirements is one of the hardest DBA tasks. The TPC-H and similar applications are meant to aid in this process, albeit a little. Ideally, a user does not require an extensive DBA course to handle reasonably sized database and its application.</p>
<p>The development in the area of column-stores and main-memory databases is moving at great pace.<br />
Some throw hardware at the problem (Kickfire), others exploit different ways of software layering (Vertica, MonetDB). From an software architecture point of view understanding the pro-s and con-s are highly desirable and benchmark comparisons are a step into this direction.</p>
<p>From your comments on april 22, should i conclude that you don&#8217;t consider MySQL the premiere choice for datawarehouses?<br />
If it is, did the performance team produce better results on the MySQL versions as presented by Peter at the beginning of this thread, including those beyond the 100GB. What are the tricks and their impact?<br />
I am eager to learn those from the insiders, because the performance of MySQL does not stand out against the fullscale (OLTP +DW) version of MonetDB. Any reference to independent and public available numbers, albeit non-official, are appreciated.</p>
<p>regards, and keep up the good work on database kernels<br />
Martin</p>
<p>ps <a href="http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/" rel="nofollow">http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/</a> for an indication. Numbers are confirmed recently, trends are the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah Freire</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-290080</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Freire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-290080</guid>
		<description>Hi Peter,

It would be great to know which MySQL settings you used for the 10GB test and 100GB test. What about posting your my.cnf? ;-)

Thank you,

-Noah</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Peter,</p>
<p>It would be great to know which MySQL settings you used for the 10GB test and 100GB test. What about posting your my.cnf? <img src='http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Thank you,</p>
<p>-Noah</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286144</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286144</guid>
		<description>Sure. However you need to understand why things are the way they are.

First this is appliance with 64G of Memory and it uses certain compression for the data which means there was quite good data fit in memory compared to 16G of memory the Dell box had.
Furthermore  Kickfire uses column store which reduces IO needed dramatically in case of large scans.  It however comes at cost of accessing multiple columns becomes more expensive.

As I mentioned Kickfire indeed handles some kind of queries just great but I would not put it as "MySQL Killer" especially until it is out of Beta and we get more hands-on experiences with it to understand Its limits. 

Infobright, NitroDB, Kickfire all promise great speed improvements for certain kind of operations and I'm quite confident things work this way for queries they have on presentation slides and in demos, however you always see best results on such marketing presentation.

I think Kickfire has a great idea of hardware accelerator - I just do not have enough information at this point to judge how well they have implemented it in practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure. However you need to understand why things are the way they are.</p>
<p>First this is appliance with 64G of Memory and it uses certain compression for the data which means there was quite good data fit in memory compared to 16G of memory the Dell box had.<br />
Furthermore  Kickfire uses column store which reduces IO needed dramatically in case of large scans.  It however comes at cost of accessing multiple columns becomes more expensive.</p>
<p>As I mentioned Kickfire indeed handles some kind of queries just great but I would not put it as &#8220;MySQL Killer&#8221; especially until it is out of Beta and we get more hands-on experiences with it to understand Its limits. </p>
<p>Infobright, NitroDB, Kickfire all promise great speed improvements for certain kind of operations and I&#8217;m quite confident things work this way for queries they have on presentation slides and in demos, however you always see best results on such marketing presentation.</p>
<p>I think Kickfire has a great idea of hardware accelerator - I just do not have enough information at this point to judge how well they have implemented it in practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Igor</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286129</link>
		<dc:creator>Igor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286129</guid>
		<description>Q1 in TPC-H is one of the most basic queries there is - and it's 100x slower using ~30K Kickfire appliance (so presumably no tuning is required - is it really the case?) vs what looks like 4-6K$ Dell server you've used. Time difference on other queries (except Q22) is even more dramatic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Q1 in TPC-H is one of the most basic queries there is - and it&#8217;s 100x slower using ~30K Kickfire appliance (so presumably no tuning is required - is it really the case?) vs what looks like 4-6K$ Dell server you&#8217;ve used. Time difference on other queries (except Q22) is even more dramatic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286104</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286104</guid>
		<description>Igor,

Kickfire is very fast for what it does, but you should consider couple things here.

First - KickFire is positioned as Datawarehouse engine right now - it is not designed for OLTP etc.

Second -  MySQL just handled these particular queries very badly.  In real MySQL world if you have such queries you either rewrite your queries or you do not use MySQL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Igor,</p>
<p>Kickfire is very fast for what it does, but you should consider couple things here.</p>
<p>First - KickFire is positioned as Datawarehouse engine right now - it is not designed for OLTP etc.</p>
<p>Second -  MySQL just handled these particular queries very badly.  In real MySQL world if you have such queries you either rewrite your queries or you do not use MySQL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Igor</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286093</link>
		<dc:creator>Igor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-286093</guid>
		<description>Given that Kickfire published 100GB TPC-H results (audited) where none of the queries took more than 37 SECONDS - so for example on Q1 it's 100 TIMES faster than result above (http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Kickfire/Kickfire_2300_ES_TPCH_100G_041408.pdf) it appears MySQL/Sun have some real challenges ahead in this area (unless they'll buy Kickfire or sue it out of existence etc).
 I'm not affiliated with Kickfire in any way, shape or form no do I know anyone working there. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that Kickfire published 100GB TPC-H results (audited) where none of the queries took more than 37 SECONDS - so for example on Q1 it&#8217;s 100 TIMES faster than result above (http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Kickfire/Kickfire_2300_ES_TPCH_100G_041408.pdf) it appears MySQL/Sun have some real challenges ahead in this area (unless they&#8217;ll buy Kickfire or sue it out of existence etc).<br />
 I&#8217;m not affiliated with Kickfire in any way, shape or form no do I know anyone working there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-284512</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-284512</guid>
		<description>Ivan,

I'm not sure who is responsible for bugs now but you can write to jay@  (Jay Pipes) and he should take care of the problem himself or ask someone to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ivan,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure who is responsible for bugs now but you can write to jay@  (Jay Pipes) and he should take care of the problem himself or ask someone to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan Evtuhovich</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-284419</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan Evtuhovich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-284419</guid>
		<description>Hello, Peter.

At this time I can't post bug on bugs.mysql.com. When i press Add Comment on existing bug, i see "An error occured when trying to verify your login credentials. Please log out and try again." I relogin, but problem still exists (sorry for my english).

On site i don't find any email address, where to post this problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, Peter.</p>
<p>At this time I can&#8217;t post bug on bugs.mysql.com. When i press Add Comment on existing bug, i see &#8220;An error occured when trying to verify your login credentials. Please log out and try again.&#8221; I relogin, but problem still exists (sorry for my english).</p>
<p>On site i don&#8217;t find any email address, where to post this problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MySQL Optimizer team comments on TPC-H Results &#124; MySQL Performance Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-277273</link>
		<dc:creator>MySQL Optimizer team comments on TPC-H Results &#124; MySQL Performance Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/04/10/tpc-h-run-on-mysql-51-and-60/#comment-277273</guid>
		<description>[...] to speak to Igor - head of MySQL optimizer team and Timur - both of them expressed concern with TPC-H run results I posted and notes about little gains in MySQL [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to speak to Igor - head of MySQL optimizer team and Timur - both of them expressed concern with TPC-H run results I posted and notes about little gains in MySQL [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
