Performance¶

Client Cache Tracing

Comparisons¶

This document captures various performance metrics, comparing RelStorage to other ZODB storages at given points in time. The numbers given here cannot be compared to each other outside their own test.

RelStorage 3¶

RelStorage 3 performance is substantially improved on many benchmarks. See this post for details.

RelStorage 2.1a1 vs RelStorage 2.0¶

This section compares the performance improvements in RelStorage 2.1a1 with RelStorage 2.0. (Hot and warm results are omitted because they had essentially no change in these tests.)

All RelStorage schemas were history free and did not use memcache. ZODB was version 5.1.1, MySQL was version 5.7.17, and PostgreSQL was version 9.6.1. All databases and cache settings were at the default. The database drivers were mysqlclient-1.3.9 and psycopg2-2.6.2.

The test suite was zodbshootout 0.6 running on CPython 2.7.13 on a 2.5Ghz Intel Core i7 (MacBookPro11,5) under macOS 10.12.2.

First, the default test scenario for zodbshootout (1000 objects per transaction, each with a size of 128), running in two concurrent processes. We can see substantial gains for PostgreSQL on all tests (30-40%), while MySQL shows modest gains for adding and reading objects (10%).

That test is useful for assessing raw throughput, but it is not very representative of most real-world uses. Studies of some production databases show that most transactions consist of 100 or fewer objects that are often around 256 bytes in size. (Naturally these numbers can vary quite a bit depending on application.) Also, many applications use in-process concurrency, whether threads or gevent.

This test reflects that, using 6 threads each working on 100 256-byte objects. We can again see substantial gains for PostgreSQL on adding and updating objects (20% and 60%, respectively), and modest gains for MySQL on both those tasks (10% and 7%, respectively).

RelStorage 2.0¶

All RelStorage schemas were history free and did not use a memcache instance. ZEO was version 5.0.4 and used a FileStorage backend from ZODB 5.1.1 MySQL was version 5.5.53 and PostgreSQL was version 9.6.1. The database drivers were mysqlclient-1.3.9 and psycopg2 2.6.2. All RelStorage cache settings were at their default values (MySQL configuration had been somewhat modified from its defaults but PostgreSQL was at its defaults).

The test suite was zodbshootout 0.6 with a concurrency level of 2 (and all other options the default), running on CPython 2.7.12 on a 2.5Ghz Intel Core i7 (MacBookPro11,5) under macOS 10.12.2.

Transaction	PostgreSQL	MySQL	ZEO
Add 1000 Objects	19534	23184	8152
Update 1000 Objects	17140	23790	7122
Read 1000 Warm Objects	14232	16649	4796
Read 1000 Cold Objects	15595	18070	4860
Read 1000 Hot Objects	86326	88422	82600

Memcache¶

This is exactly the same configuration as above, but shows the effect of introducing a local memcache instance. The “warm” test performs better, but the other tests perform worse.

Transaction	PostgreSQL	MySQL	ZEO
Add 1000 Objects	14789	17378	8220
Update 1000 Objects	13834	17711	7021
Read 1000 Warm Objects	27394	27978	4662
Read 1000 Cold Objects	7621	8415	4344
Read 1000 Hot Objects	86165	83438	76540

PyPy¶

This is the same as the second configuration, except we’re using PyPy 5.6.0 for everything (including running the ZEO server). The database drivers were PyMySQL-0.7.9 and psycopg2cffi-2.7.5.

Transaction	PostgreSQL	MySQL	ZEO
Add 1000 Objects	15235	13849	4681
Update 1000 Objects	18522	25939	4853
Read 1000 Warm Object	15138	964041	23843
Read 1000 Cold Object	11974	9876	3360
Read 1000 Hot Objects	99241	81685	25552

Under PyPy, the benchmark was run in shared threads mode (--threads shared) instead of separate processes, to allow PyPy’s JIT to warm up. Under CPython, shared threads for concurrency two generally reduces performance (with the exception of one test), but under PyPy it substantially improves performance.

For comparison, here’s the shared thread results for CPython:

Transaction	PostgreSQL	MySQL	ZEO
Add 1000 Objects	13409	14081	4852
Update 1000 Objects	11541	14310	4496
Read 1000 Warm Objects	42646	43699	123079
Read 1000 Cold Objects	10253	7712	3497
Read 1000 Hot Objects	24973	26129	25049

RelStorage 1.6.1 vs RelStorage 2.0¶

These tests are run using the same configuration (databases, database drivers, CPython version and same machine) as above, to show any performance differences between RelStorage 2.0 and RelStorage 1.6.1 (running with ZODB 4.4.4 and ZEO 4.3.1).

RelStorage 1.4.0b1¶

All RelStorage schemas were history free and used a memcache instance. ZEO was version 3.9.3 and used a FileStorage backend.

The test suite was zodbshootout 0.2 with a concurrency level of 2, running on Python 2.6 on a 2.1Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (T8100)

Transaction	PostgreSQL	MySQL	ZEO
Add 1000 Objects	9177	12711	5044
Update 1000 Objects	10040	9431	4017
Read 1000 Warm Objects	20897	22310	1924
Read 1000 Cold Objects	6591	5853	1932
Read 1000 Hot Objects	36847	37950	36545