Bug #25374 | Innodb low performace | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 2 Jan 2007 19:52 | Modified: | 7 Feb 2007 18:11 |
Reporter: | Pavel Francírek | Email Updates: | |
Status: | No Feedback | Impact on me: | |
Category: | MySQL Server: InnoDB storage engine | Severity: | S1 (Critical) |
Version: | 5.0.27 | OS: | |
Assigned to: | Assigned Account | CPU Architecture: | Any |
Tags: | innodb, lock, performance |
[2 Jan 2007 19:52]
Pavel Francírek
[2 Jan 2007 20:18]
Pavel Francírek
and with 5.0.26 and original config is performance even worse than with 4.0.24
[3 Jan 2007 8:41]
Pavel Francírek
Sorry, the version is 5.0.27-standard-log
[3 Jan 2007 8:47]
Pavel Francírek
Changing transaction levels didn't help.
[3 Jan 2007 12:19]
Heikki Tuuri
Pavel, please post your my.cnf and the full output of SHOW INNODB STATUS\G and vmstat 5 during the slow performance. Regards, Heikki
[3 Jan 2007 12:21]
Heikki Tuuri
Oops, I see that you already posted what I need! Thank you. --Heikki
[4 Jan 2007 15:39]
Heikki Tuuri
Pavel, the workload looks like CPU-bound. Only < 20 file I/O operations per second. You have lots of queries doing sorting in ORDER BY ... DESC. Can you create an index that could speed up those queries? No threads seem to be waiting for InnoDB semaphores. 71 threads are waiting in the InnoDB queue. This does not look like bugs #15815 and #22868, but with good luck, you could get better performance with MySQL-5.0.30. The source code of it is available at ftp://ftp.mysql.com/pub/mysql/src. Please test with that. Regards, Heikki
[4 Jan 2007 15:40]
Heikki Tuuri
The 'statistics' status of a MySQL query means that the optimizer is collecting and calculating statistics for query optimization. It is a very common state for a query.
[5 Jan 2007 10:07]
Pavel Francírek
ad index. The data for this index are updated thousand times per second but range selects are only few (maybe tens per second). So we decided to not create index and trade scan overhead for saving of index update overhead. It worked quite good since this problem. Now it really looks like this select scans block row level access. ad source. We can try but we always preferred binary packages because we never got the same performance with binary compiled by ourselves. But true is that we did so few years ago :)
[5 Jan 2007 10:11]
Pavel Francírek
Thank you. I understand of state 'statistics' now. But it seems to me that too many processes spent too much time in this state especially if queries are using primary key. But it may be caused by amount of this processes.
[5 Jan 2007 16:04]
Heikki Tuuri
Pavel, I did not quite understand, have you already tested an index to help the SELECT query? Regarding source releases: MySQL AB no longer gives binaries for download of the latest versions of MySQL-5.0.xx Enterprise. You have to build 5.0.30 from source, or find some Linux distro site that contains a binary. Kaj Arnö blogged about this: http://www.planetmysql.org/kaj/?p=82 Regards, Heikki
[7 Jan 2007 14:06]
Pavel Francírek
OK. I understand. We did two steps: 1) Downloaded and compiled 5.0.30-log version 2) Separated frequently updated data to different table so in innodb engine are only queries to one row identified by primary key. Even then nothing changed. Queries are still slow. One think we don't understand is why the same server, same hardware and same quieries were done at rate 7000q/s before December 31 and are done at rate 4500q/s now.
[7 Jan 2007 14:13]
Pavel Francírek
another status
Attachment: status_5.0.30-1 (application/octet-stream, text), 62.59 KiB.
[7 Jan 2007 17:33]
Heikki Tuuri
Pavel, maybe the table sizes have changed, or query optimization has changed? That could explain why it now uses more CPU. The InnoDB statuses that you attached do show quite a few semaphore waits. That is a sign of 'thread thrashing'. You should test setting innodb_thread_concurrency to 4, or even to 1, to throttle concurrency. Regards, Heikki
[7 Jan 2007 18:10]
Heikki Tuuri
Pavel, that may suggest contention on the MySQL LOCK_open mutex. Please test restricting innodb_thread_concurrency. --Heikki
[8 Feb 2007 0:00]
Bugs System
No feedback was provided for this bug for over a month, so it is being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the information that was originally requested, please do so and change the status of the bug back to "Open".