tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post4799702840706036277..comments2024-03-28T11:39:50.622+01:00Comments on Karlsson on databases and stuff: Revisiting libmysqld, the client / server overhead and all that. And an apologyKarlssonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-42696241870511396232012-08-31T21:12:22.719+02:002012-08-31T21:12:22.719+02:00Mats!
Good point, I'd give that a shot, as...Mats!<br /><br /> Good point, I'd give that a shot, as well as Drizzle itself eventually.<br /><br />Cheers<br />/KarlssonKarlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-81480659413465189552012-08-31T09:39:47.518+02:002012-08-31T09:39:47.518+02:00Have you tried out libdrizzle? It is re-implementa...Have you tried out <a href="https://launchpad.net/libdrizzle" rel="nofollow">libdrizzle</a>? It is re-implementation of the MySQL connector library developed by Eric Day. He is using asynchronous I/O for the implementation, which showed some 16% performance increase in some <a href="www.joinfu.com/2009/04/libdrizzle-benchmarks--massive-performance-increases/" rel="nofollow">measurements done by Jay Pipes in 2009</a> (seems page is gone, but you can read it <a href="http://www.joinfu.com/category/mysql/page/4/" rel="nofollow">here</a>). I haven't kept up with the latest developments there, but it might be interesting to look at.Mats Kindahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528917029894926261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-76741325116990433062012-08-30T23:01:24.428+02:002012-08-30T23:01:24.428+02:00Yes, that is true and that is why I assume is why ...Yes, that is true and that is why I assume is why t was implemented to begin with. These days though, I do not think this is an issue in most cases.<br /><br />Cheers<br />/KarlssonKarlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-32165310421670509742012-08-30T17:08:54.991+02:002012-08-30T17:08:54.991+02:00Hi Anders,
one reason I've seen CLIENT_COMPRES...Hi Anders,<br />one reason I've seen CLIENT_COMPRESS being user is when you have low bandwidth to the DB Server (not common when the application and the DB resides in the same datacenter anymore). However this would require that you have the CPU cycles to do the compression and de-compression on both the DB server and client so the benefit might not bee there anyway.<br /><br /><>Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06993317520268647812noreply@blogger.com