Comments on: MySQL-Memcached or NOSQL Tokyo Tyrant – part 2

By: efpe

efpe — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:13:59 +0000

I’m looking forward to see a Redis versus Memcached test. Redis is persistant and has replication feature.

By: MySQL-Memcached or NOSQL Tokyo Tyrant – part 3 | MySQL Performance Blog

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:34:22 +0000

[...] 3 of our series.Â In part 1 we talked about boosting performance with memcached on top of MySQL, in Part 2 we talked about running 100% outside the data with memcached, and now in Part 3 we are going to [...]

By: Sergi

Sergi — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:16:55 +0000

Great series Matt.

I’m looking forward to read about the performance with the so-called nosql solutions, specially Redis and Voldemort. By the way, the link to part 1 is broken.

By: Roland

Roland — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:32:42 +0000

Is that Memcached::Fast from there: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Cache-Memcached-Fast/ ? Or something else?

By: matt

matt — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:12:34 +0000

@Peter,

The 100x claim is a bit misleading, as memcached has the ability to cache everything -vs- MySQL which I did handicap. The idea was to compare a memory footprint in MySQL -vs- the same memory footprint in Tokyo Tyrant ( Tyrant only had 256M allocated to it as well )… but memcached has no disk based component so everything has to be in memory… however this can be distributed over multiple machines.

Memcached::Fast is implemented in C.

I have run both, but I figured locally would be best for these numbers… so everything here is local access.

By: peter

peter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:50:15 +0000

Matt,

I’m not sure I quite follow the 100x gain from “stock” MySQL
What exactly are you comparing here ? Is it apples to apples ? Or are you comparing the case when everything fits in memcache but only small portion fits in MySQL.

Also you show 3x difference between memcache and memcache fast – what is the difference here ?

Also are you running tests locally or over network ?

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:53:50 +0000

Just wanted to let you know that the link to part 1 is broken. Great series, I look forward to the “NOSQL” posts!

Hmm failed the challenge, 5 + 0 doesn’t equal 5 apparently. Let’s see if I can get 0 + 10 correct…

By: Ronald Bradford

Ronald Bradford — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:05:20 +0000

While the figures are good, it’s important to point out that the MySQL solution provides durability (i.e. no data loss while memcached does not.

I’m looking forward to the results of a key value (KV) product that does provide persistence storage. Are you going to be looking at others like Redis/Project Voldermot as well?