Вход на сайт
Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Sysbench vs MariaDB on a small server: using the same charset for all versions
Дата публикации: 06-04-2026 03:38:00

This has results for sysbench vs MariaDB on a small server. I repeated tests using the same charset (latin1) for all versions as explained here. In previous results I used a multi-byte charset for modern MariaDB (probably 11.4+) by mistake and that adds a 5% CPU overhead for many tests.tl;drMariaDB has done much better than MySQL at avoid regressions from code bloat.There are several performance improvements in MariaDB 12.3 and 13.0For reads there are small regressions and frequent improvements.For writes there are  regressions up to 10%, and the biggest contributor is MariaDB 11.4Builds, configuration and hardwareI compiled MariaDB from source for versions 10.2.30, 10.2.44, 10.3.39, 10.4.34, 10.5.29, 10.6.25, 10.11.16, 11.4.10, 11.8.6, 12.3.1 and 13.0.0.The server is an ASUS ExpertCenter PN53 with AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS, 32G RAM and an m.2 device for the database. More details on it are here. The OS is Ubuntu 24.04 and the database filesystem is ext4 with discard enabled.The my.cnf files are here for 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.11, 11.4, 11.8, 12.3 and 13.0.BenchmarkI used sysbench and my usage is explained here. To save time I only run 32 of the 42 microbenchmarks and most test only 1 type of SQL statement. Benchmarks are run with the database cached by InnoDB.The tests are run using 1 table with 50M rows. The read-heavy microbenchmarks run for 600 seconds and the write-heavy for 1800 seconds.ResultsThe microbenchmarks are split into 4 groups -- 1 for point queries, 2 for range queries, 1 for writes. For the range query microbenchmarks, part 1 has queries that don\'t do aggregation while part 2 has queries that do aggregation. I provide tables below with relative QPS. When the relative QPS is > 1 then some version is faster than the base version. When it is < 1 then there might be a regression.  The relative QPS is:(QPS for some version) / (QPS for MariaDB 10.2.30) Values from iostat and vmstat divided by QPS are here. These can help to explain why something is faster or slower because it shows how much HW is used per request.The spreadsheet with results and charts is here. Files with performance summaries are here.Results: point queriesSummaryThe y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 7 of 9 testsThere were regressions from 10.2 through 10.5Performance has been improving from 10.6 through 13.0Results: range queries without aggregationSummaryThe y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 2 of 5 testsThere were regressions from 10.2 through 10.5, then performance was stable from 10.6 though 11.8, and now performance has improved in 12.3 and 13.0.Results: range queries with aggregationSummaryThe y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 1 of 8 tests and within 2% in 6 testsResults: writesSummaryThe y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.Modern MariaDB (13.0) is about 10% slower than old MariaDB (10.2) in 5 of 10 tests and the largest regressions arrive in 11.4.
Sysbench vs MariaDB on a small server: using the same charset for all versions appeared first on MariaDB.org


Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

This has results for sysbench vs MariaDB on a small server. I repeated tests using the same charset (latin1) for all versions as explained here. In previous results I used a multi-byte charset for modern MariaDB (probably 11.4+) by mistake and that adds a 5% CPU overhead for many tests.

tl;dr

  • MariaDB has done much better than MySQL at avoid regressions from code bloat.
  • There are several performance improvements in MariaDB 12.3 and 13.0
  • For reads there are small regressions and frequent improvements.
  • For writes there are  regressions up to 10%, and the biggest contributor is MariaDB 11.4

Builds, configuration and hardware

I compiled MariaDB from source for versions 10.2.30, 10.2.44, 10.3.39, 10.4.34, 10.5.29, 10.6.25, 10.11.16, 11.4.10, 11.8.6, 12.3.1 and 13.0.0.

The server is an ASUS ExpertCenter PN53 with AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS, 32G RAM and an m.2 device for the database. More details on it are here. The OS is Ubuntu 24.04 and the database filesystem is ext4 with discard enabled.

The my.cnf files are here for 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.11, 11.4, 11.8, 12.3 and 13.0.

Benchmark

I used sysbench and my usage is explained here. To save time I only run 32 of the 42 microbenchmarks and most test only 1 type of SQL statement. Benchmarks are run with the database cached by InnoDB.

The tests are run using 1 table with 50M rows. The read-heavy microbenchmarks run for 600 seconds and the write-heavy for 1800 seconds.

Results

The microbenchmarks are split into 4 groups -- 1 for point queries, 2 for range queries, 1 for writes. For the range query microbenchmarks, part 1 has queries that don't do aggregation while part 2 has queries that do aggregation. 

I provide tables below with relative QPS. When the relative QPS is > 1 then some version is faster than the base version. When it is < 1 then there might be a regression.  The relative QPS is:

(QPS for some version) / (QPS for MariaDB 10.2.30) 

Values from iostat and vmstat divided by QPS are here. These can help to explain why something is faster or slower because it shows how much HW is used per request.

The spreadsheet with results and charts is here. Files with performance summaries are here.

Results: point queries

Summary

  • The y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.
  • Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 7 of 9 tests
    • There were regressions from 10.2 through 10.5
    • Performance has been improving from 10.6 through 13.0

QPS%20relative%20to%2010.2.30_%20point%20queries.png

Results: range queries without aggregation

Summary

  • The y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.
  • Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 2 of 5 tests
    • There were regressions from 10.2 through 10.5, then performance was stable from 10.6 though 11.8, and now performance has improved in 12.3 and 13.0.

QPS%20relative%20to%2010.2.30_%20range%20queries%20without%20aggregation.png

Results: range queries with aggregation

Summary

  • The y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.
  • Modern MariaDB (13.0) is faster than old MariaDB (10.2) in 1 of 8 tests and within 2% in 6 tests

QPS%20relative%20to%2010.2.30_%20range%20queries%20with%20aggregation.png

Results: writes

Summary

  • The y-axis starts at 0.8 to improve readability.
  • Modern MariaDB (13.0) is about 10% slower than old MariaDB (10.2) in 5 of 10 tests and the largest regressions arrive in 11.4.

QPS%20relative%20to%2010.2.30_%20writes.png

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1The Insert Benchmark vs MariaDB 10.2 to 13.0 on a 24-core server012.608-04-2026
2The Insert Benchmark vs MariaDB 10.2 to 13.0 on a 32-core server06.4308-04-2026
3CPU-bound sysbench on a large server: Postgres, MySQL and MariaDB05.5304-04-2026
4Sysbench vs MySQL on a small server: no new regressions, many old ones08.824-03-2026
5Sysbench vs MySQL on a small server: another way to view the regressions09.0109-04-2026
6Selecting a character set for MySQL and MariaDB clients07.4729-03-2026
7MySQL 9.7.0 vs sysbench on a small server08.9810-04-2026
8Off-CPU Analysis Attempt to Find the Reason of Performance Regression in MariaDB 10.4011.209-05-2021
9MariaDB innovation: binlog_storage_engine, small server, Insert Benchmark06.9418-02-2026
10MariaDB innovation: binlog_storage_engine, 48-core server, Insert Benchmark07.6618-03-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 8.32. Источник: mariadb.org.