Automatic rebalance/repair/self-healing (we can remove or add new node, and it will distribute the data and rebalance itself, data are replicated to more than 1 node). Previous benchmark doesn't really care about this awesome feature (no more cutoff downtime to kill master instance and promote slave as master then switch every client to connect to new master -- if not using any proxy).
Some databases that I found that support this feature:
- Aerospike (in-mem kv database, community edition max 4 billion object) https://aerospike.com/products/product-matrix/
- Couchbase (document database, there's community edition) https://www.couchbase.com/products/editions
- MongoDB (document database, without SQL syntax)
- Cassandra (columnar database, CQL a subset of SQL)
- ScyllaDB (columnar database, cassandra-compatible, oss version max 5 node) https://www.scylladb.com/pricing/
- CockroachDB (postgresql compatible, there's core edition) https://www.cockroachlabs.com/compare/
- TiDB (mysql compatible)
- YugaByteDB (postgresql/cassandra/redis compatible)
- RavenDB (community edition max ram 6GB) https://ravendb.net/buy
- SingleStore/MemSQL (mysql compatible, free edition max 4 node) https://www.singlestore.com/free-software/
The repository are here: https://github.com/kokizzu/hugedbbench on the 2021 folder. We're going to test local single (if possible) and multi server deployment using docker. Why using docker? because i don't want to ruin my computer/server with trash files they are creating in system directory (if any). Some of databases not included if not supporting SQL or if a license key required to start. Why only benchmarking 2 column? because it fit my project's most common use case, where there's 1 PK (bigint or string), and 1 unique key (mostly string), and the rest mostly some indexed or non-indexed column. Why are you even doing this? Just want to select the best thing for my next side project's techstack (and because my past companies I've work with seems love to move around database server location a lot).
The specs for the server that used in this benchmark: 32-core 128GB RAM 500GB NVMe disk.
CockroachDB
CockroachDB is one of NewSQL movement that support PostgreSQL syntax, to deploy in single node we can use docker compose. The UI for cluster monitor on port 8080 is quite ok :3 better than nothing.
Here's the result for 100 inserts x 1000 goroutines:
Version used: v21.1.11
CockroachDB InsertOne 10.034616078s
CockroachDB Count 42.326487ms
CockroachDB UpdateOne 12.804722812s
CockroachDB Count 78.221432ms
CockroachDB SelectOne 2.281355728s
CockroachDB Total 25.2420225s
$ sudo du -h --max-depth 0 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach1
442M 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach1
CockroachDB InsertOne 7.125466063s
CockroachDB Count 39.753102ms
CockroachDB UpdateOne 10.221870484s
CockroachDB Count 70.624908ms
CockroachDB SelectOne 2.196985441s
CockroachDB Total 19.655920219s
432M 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach1
# multiple cockroach docker but connect only into one
# multiple cockroach docker but connect only into one
# seems high availability (>1 RF) turned on by default
# but you have to init the cluster manually after docker-compose up
CockroachDB InsertOne 13.979257573s
CockroachDB Count 46.824883ms
CockroachDB UpdateOne 1m22.941738013s
CockroachDB Count 42.374814ms
CockroachDB SelectOne 2.676679427s
CockroachDB Total 1m39.687566436s
433M 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach1
292M 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach2
222M 2021/cockroachdb/cockroach3
TiDB
TiDB is one of NewSQL movement that support MySQL syntax, the recommended way is using tiup command, but we're going to use docker so it would be fair with other database product. The official docker use 3 placement driver and 3 kv server, so I try that first. The cluster monitor in port 10080 but it blocked by chrome, so I moved it on 10081, it's very plaintexty compared to other products.
Version used: 5.7.25-TiDB-v5.0.1
TiDB InsertOne 14.063953386s
TiDB Count 32.523526ms
TiDB UpdateOne 11.329688001s
TiDB Count 49.320725ms
TiDB SelectOne 2.110410282s
TiDB Total 27.601866351s
$ sudo du -h --max-depth 0 2021/tidb/t*/
24G 2021/tidb/tikv0/
24G 2021/tidb/tikv1/
24G 2021/tidb/tikv2/
123M 2021/tidb/tipd0/
123M 2021/tidb/tipd1/
123M 2021/tidb/tipd2/
TiDB InsertOne 13.434256392s
TiDB Count 44.192782ms
TiDB UpdateOne 12.575839233s
TiDB Count 63.126285ms
TiDB SelectOne 2.00257672s
TiDB Total 28.134319527s
24G 2021/tidb/tikv0/
24G 2021/tidb/tikv1/
24G 2021/tidb/tikv2/
123M 2021/tidb/tipd0/
62M 2021/tidb/tipd1/
62M 2021/tidb/tipd2/
# reducing to single server mode (1 pd, 1 kv, 1 db), first run:
TiDB InsertOne 3.216365486s
TiDB Count 34.30629ms
TiDB UpdateOne 3.913131711s
TiDB Count 62.202395ms
TiDB SelectOne 1.991229179s
TiDB Total 9.233077269s
24G 2021/tidb/tikv0/
62M 2021/tidb/tipd0/
YugaByteDB
YugaByteDB is one of NewSQL movement that support PostgreSQL syntax, to deploy in single node we can use docker compose too. The cluster monitor on port :7000 is quite ok. The tmp directory mounted because if it isn't it would stuck starting on 2nd time unless the temporary file manually deleted. limits.conf applied.
Version used: 2.9.1.0
YugaByteDB InsertOne 11.402609701s
YugaByteDB Count 159.357304ms
YugaByteDB UpdateOne 19.232827282s
YugaByteDB Count 214.389496ms
YugaByteDB SelectOne 2.778803557s
YugaByteDB Total 33.834838111s
$ sudo du -h --max-depth 0 2021/yugabytedb/yb*1
25M 2021/yugabytedb/ybmaster1
519M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver1
YugaByteDB InsertOne 13.536083917s
YugaByteDB Count 202.381009ms
YugaByteDB UpdateOne 20.78337085s
YugaByteDB Count 190.119437ms
YugaByteDB SelectOne 2.849347721s
YugaByteDB Total 37.607747856s
25M 2021/yugabytedb/ybmaster1
519M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver1
# multiple ybtserver but only connect to one
# replication factor 1, first run:
YugaByteDB InsertOne 15.260747636s
YugaByteDB Count 66.599257ms
YugaByteDB UpdateOne 26.246382158s
YugaByteDB Count 63.119089ms
YugaByteDB SelectOne 3.213271599s
YugaByteDB Total 44.90095282s
25M 2021/yugabytedb/ybmaster1
242M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver1
156M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver2
132M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver3
# after changing replication factor to 2, first run:
YugaByteDB InsertOne 38.614091068s
YugaByteDB Count 76.615212ms
YugaByteDB UpdateOne 56.796680169s
YugaByteDB Count 84.35411ms
YugaByteDB SelectOne 3.14747611s
YugaByteDB Total 1m38.756226195s
26M 2021/yugabytedb/ybmaster1
343M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver1
349M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver2
349M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver3
# after changing replication factor to 3, first run:
YugaByteDB InsertOne 45.289805293s
YugaByteDB Count 97.112383ms
YugaByteDB UpdateOne 54.665380464s
YugaByteDB Count 64.206741ms
YugaByteDB SelectOne 3.125693618s
YugaByteDB Total 1m43.290014042s
YugaByteDB Total 1m43.290014042s
26M 2021/yugabytedb/ybmaster1/
513M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver1/
512M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver2/
512M 2021/yugabytedb/ybtserver3/
Conclusion
Here's the recap of 100 records x 1000 goroutine insert/update/select duration, only for single instance:
So, at best, it roughly on average take 29 μs to insert, 39 μs to update, 19 μs to select one record.
Comparing only multi (RF=2+):
So, at best, it roughly on average take 31 μs to insert, 41 μs to update, 21 μs to select one record.
Comparing only multi with replication factor with true HA:
It seems TiDB has most balanced performance in expense the need to have pre-allocated disk space, while CockroachDB has worst performance on multi-instance update task, and YugabyteDB has worst performance on multi-instance insert task.
What happened if we do the benchmark once more, remove one storage node (docker stop), then redo the benchmark (only for RF=2+)?
Yugabytedb test doesn't even entering the insert stage after 5 minutes '__') may be because of truncate is slow? so I changed the benchmark scenario only for yugabyte to be 1 node be killed after 2 seconds of insertion phase, but still yugabyte giving an error "ERROR: Timed out: Write RPC (request call id 3873) to 172.21.0.5:9100 timed out after 60.000s (SQLSTATE XX000)", it cannot complete. EDIT yugabyte staff on slack suggested that it should be using RF=3 so it would still survive when one node died.
TiDB seems to be the winner also for case when a node died, in expense of the need of 7 initial node (1 tidb [should be at least 2 for HA], 3 tipd, 3 tikv, but probably can be squeezed to be 1 tidb, 1 tipd, 2 tikv, since apparently the default replication factor is 3), where cockroachdb only need 3, and yugabytedb need 4 (1 ybmaster, 3 ybserver). Not sure tho what would happened if 1 tidb/ybmaster instance is died. The recap spreadsheet are here.
UPDATE #1: redo the benchmark for all database after updating the limits.conf, TiDB improved by a lot, while CockroachDB remains the same except for update benchmark.
