TiDB Sysbench Performance Test Report -- v2.0.0 vs. v1.0.0
Test purpose
This test aims to compare the performances of TiDB 1.0 and TiDB 2.0.
Test version, time, and place
TiDB version: v1.0.8 vs. v2.0.0-rc6
Time: April 2018
Place: Beijing, China
Test environment
IDC machine
| Type | Name |
|---|---|
| OS | linux (CentOS 7.3.1611) |
| CPU | 40 vCPUs, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 @ 2.20GHz |
| RAM | 128GB |
| DISK | Optane 500GB SSD * 1 |
Test plan
TiDB version information
v1.0.8
| Component | GitHash |
|---|---|
| TiDB | 571f0bbd28a0b8155a5ee831992c986b90d21ab7 |
| TiKV | 4ef5889947019e3cb55cc744f487aa63b42540e7 |
| PD | 776bcd940b71d295a2c7ed762582bc3aff7d3c0e |
v2.0.0-rc6
| Component | GitHash |
|---|---|
| TiDB | 82d35f1b7f9047c478f4e1e82aa0002abc8107e7 |
| TiKV | 7ed4f6a91f92cad5cd5323aaebe7d9f04b77cc79 |
| PD | 2c8e7d7e33b38e457169ce5dfb2f461fced82d65 |
TiKV parameter configuration
v1.0.8
sync-log = false grpc-concurrency = 8 grpc-raft-conn-num = 24v2.0.0-rc6
sync-log = false grpc-concurrency = 8 grpc-raft-conn-num = 24 use-delete-range: false
Cluster topology
| Machine IP | Deployment instance |
|---|---|
| 172.16.21.1 | 1tidb 1pd 1*sysbench |
| 172.16.21.2 | 1tidb 1pd 1*sysbench |
| 172.16.21.3 | 1tidb 1pd 1*sysbench |
| 172.16.11.4 | 1*tikv |
| 172.16.11.5 | 1*tikv |
| 172.16.11.6 | 1*tikv |
| 172.16.11.7 | 1*tikv |
| 172.16.11.8 | 1*tikv |
| 172.16.11.9 | 1*tikv |
Test result
Standard Select test
| Version | Table count | Table size | Sysbench threads | QPS | Latency (avg/.95) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 201936 | 1.9033 ms/5.67667 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 208130 | 3.69333 ms/8.90333 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 211788 | 7.23333 ms/15.59 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 212868 | 14.5933 ms/43.2133 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 188686 | 2.03667 ms/5.99 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 195090 | 3.94 ms/9.12 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 203012 | 7.57333 ms/15.3733 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 205932 | 14.9267 ms/40.7633 ms |
According to the statistics above, the Select query performance of TiDB 2.0 GA has increased by about 10% at most than that of TiDB 1.0 GA.
Standard OLTP test
| Version | Table count | Table size | Sysbench threads | TPS | QPS | Latency (avg/.95) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 5404.22 | 108084.4 | 87.2033 ms/110 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 5578.165 | 111563.3 | 167.673 ms/275.623 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 5874.045 | 117480.9 | 315.083 ms/674.017 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 6290.7 | 125814 | 529.183 ms/857.007 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 5523.91 | 110478 | 69.53 ms/88.6333 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 5969.43 | 119389 | 128.63 ms/162.58 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 6308.93 | 126179 | 243.543 ms/310.913 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 6444.25 | 128885 | 476.787ms/635.143 ms |
According to the statistics above, the OLTP performance of TiDB 2.0 GA and TiDB 1.0 GA is almost the same.
Standard Insert test
| Version | Table count | Table size | Sysbench threads | QPS | Latency (avg/.95) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 31707.5 | 12.11 ms/21.1167 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 38741.2 | 19.8233 ms/39.65 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 45136.8 | 34.0267 ms/66.84 ms |
| v2.0.0-rc6 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 48667 | 63.1167 ms/121.08 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 128 * 3 | 31125.7 | 12.3367 ms/19.89 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 256 * 3 | 36800 | 20.8667 ms/35.3767 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 512 * 3 | 44123 | 34.8067 ms/63.32 ms |
| v1.0.8 | 32 | 10 million | 1024 * 3 | 48496 | 63.3333 ms/118.92 ms |
According to the statistics above, the Insert query performance of TiDB 2.0 GA has increased slightly than that of TiDB 1.0 GA.