Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:35:05 +0100 From: Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is MySQL nearly twice as fast on Linux? Message-ID: <20040524003505.GB2713@voi.aagh.net> In-Reply-To: <40B13BB3.3030807@freebsd.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20040521154458.01627688@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.2.20040521154458.01627688@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.2.20040522052606.0156fd70@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040522100318.01598f50@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040522135338.0158cc50@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040523090659.01628af8@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040523102747.015557e8@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040523104834.01465598@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040523114544.014d8150@mail.ojoink.com> <40B13BB3.3030807@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* David Xu (davidxu@freebsd.org) wrote: > Note that default mysql table type is mysql, which uses Giant Lock when > doing update on table, it does not support concurrent update, each thread > wants to update the table will be serialized, fix me if I am wrong, but some > years ago, mysql book tells me the fact, you might need to look other types, > for example, BDB or innodb. 50% cpu usage on SMP machine is normal for > MySQL server using mysql table type. Only if you're only using one table. While this is true in this benchmark, it isn't really relevent because we're only testing selects, which are pure reads. There should be no table locking getting in the way; Linux's performance would seem to confirm this. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - freaky@aagh.net - http://www.aagh.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040524003505.GB2713>