We have a MariaDB 10.3 on a Redhat Server (VM) with 90 GB Ram and 20 VCPUs. I'm trying to optimize the Database. I installed Sysbench for Benchmarking and after a 50 seconds test I got this values (with default MariaDB variables):

#Benchmarking command:
    sysbench oltp_read_write --threads=2 --report-interval=3 --histogram 
    --time=50 --table-size=1000000 --db-driver=mysql --mysql-host=firstserver
    --mysql-db=sbtest  --mysql-user=sbtest_user --mysql-password=password run

SQL statistics:
    queries performed:
        read:                            271040
        write:                           77440
        other:                           38720
        total:                           387200
    transactions:                        19360  (387.15 per sec.)
    queries:                             387200 (7742.96 per sec.)
    ignored errors:                      0      (0.00 per sec.)
    reconnects:                          0      (0.00 per sec.)

General statistics:
    total time:                          50.0054s
    total number of events:              19360

Latency (ms):
         min:                                    3.75
         avg:                                    5.16
         max:                                   26.99
         95th percentile:                        6.55
         sum:                                99964.49

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           9680.0000/2.00

For this Benchmarking the innodb_buffer_pool_size was only 2GB. I tried to optimize the DB to get more transactions and queries per second. I changed this variables:

#set memory (was 2 G)

#set log file size  (was 64MB)

#set log buffer size (was 16MB)

#set temporary in memory table size  (was 16MB)
max_heap_table_size= 64M

# set query cache     (was 1MB)

But the result changed barely.

  • 2
    The best benchmark is a set of one's own queries running against one's own (or projected) data.
    – Rick James
    Apr 26, 2022 at 22:04

2 Answers 2


I notice you have 20 CPU cores, but you're only running sysbench with 2 threads. You probably can get better results with more threads. The guideline often given is 2x the number of CPU cores, so try it with at least --threads=40.

I have also found sysbench itself has scalability limits (as any client app would). To get the best result, I ran multiple instances of client hosts, all running sysbench and connecting over the network to the same database.

Increasing the buffer pool 35x would not help at all if your data is small anyway, which I suppose it is for a sysbench run. It's like upgrading your 35,000 square foot warehouse to a million square foot warehouse to store your personal photo collection.

It's not clear why you thought increasing the other variables would help. Did you have some measurement that pointed to those being bottlenecks? How many times did your innodb commits need to wait for the log buffer to flush? What percentage of your queries used temp tables, but had to write the temp table to disk instead of using in-memory temp tables?

My point is that making random tuning choices to see what effect it has on the benchmark is not going to lead you to optimize your server. You're not approaching it like a scientist or like an engineer. If one of these made a difference, how do you know which one was important? Or would you therefore make all the same changes on your production MySQL server? If so, how is that not a superstitious ritual, like throwing salt over your shoulder for good luck?

  • Thanks for your answer Bill. I just found some articles about mysql optimizing and I thought I'll try with the best sugestions and like you said, It wasn't a good idea. I just tried it with more threads and got better view of benchmarking and performance tuning.
    – TimLer
    Apr 26, 2022 at 19:07
  • 1
    My pleasure! After writing that, I was afraid it came off as too harsh. Apologies if so. But I'm glad if it was helpful to you. Apr 26, 2022 at 19:51

To help other DBAs I wanna add some sentences from the book "O'Reilly High Performance mysql" to Bill's answer:

What Not to Do

You might be expected (or believe that you’re expected) to set up a benchmark suite and “tune” your server by changing its configuration iteratively in search of optimal settings. This usually is not something we advise most people to do. It requires so much work and research, and the potential payoff is so small in most cases, that it can be a huge waste of time. You are probably better off spending that time on other things such as checking your backups, monitoring changes in query plans, and so on.

You should not “tune by ratio.” The classic “tuning ratio” is the rule of thumb that your InnoDB buffer pool hit ratio should be higher than some percentage, and you should increase the cache size if the hit rate is too low. This is very wrong advice. Regardless of what anyone tells you, the cache hit ratio has nothing to do with whether the cache is too large or too small. To begin with, the hit ratio depends on the workload —some workloads simply aren’t cacheable no matter how big the cache is—and sec‐ ondly, cache hits are meaningless, for reasons we’ll explain later. It sometimes hap‐ pens that when the cache is too small, the hit rate is low, and increasing the cache size increases the hit rate. However, this is an accidental correlation and does not indicate anything about performance or proper sizing of the cache.

The problem with correlations that sometimes appear to be true is that people begin to believe they will always be true. Oracle DBAs abandoned ratio-based tuning years What Not to Do | 105 ago, and we wish MySQL DBAs would follow their lead. 2 We wish even more fer‐ vently that people wouldn’t write “tuning scripts” that codify these dangerous practi‐ ces and teach them to thousands of people. This leads to our next suggestion of what not to do: don’t use tuning scripts! There are several very popular ones that you can find on the internet. It’s probably best to ignore them.

We also suggest that you avoid the word tuning, which we’ve used liberally in the past few paragraphs. We favor configuration or optimization instead (as long as that’s what you’re actually doing). The word tuning conjures up images of an undisciplined nov‐ ice who tweaks the server and sees what happens. We suggested in the previous sec‐ tion that this practice is best left to those who are researching server internals. “Tuning” your server can be a stunning waste of time.

On a related topic, searching the internet for configuration advice is not always a great idea. You can find a lot of bad advice in blogs, forums, and so on. Although many experts contribute what they know online, it is not always easy to tell who is qualified. We can’t give unbiased recommendations about where to find real experts, of course. But we can say that the credible, reputable MySQL service providers are a safer bet in general than what a simple internet search turns up because people who have happy customers are probably doing something right. Even their advice, how‐ ever, can be dangerous to apply without testing and understanding because it might have been directed at a situation that differed from yours in a way you don’t understand.

Finally, don’t believe the popular memory consumption formula—yes, the very one that MySQL itself prints out when it crashes. (We won’t repeat it here.) This formula is from an ancient time. It is not a reliable or even useful way to understand how much memory MySQL can use in the worst case. You might see some variations on this formula on the internet, too. These are similarly flawed, even though they add in more factors that the original formula doesn’t have. The truth is that you can’t put an upper bound on MySQL’s memory consumption. It is not a tightly regulated database server that controls memory allocation.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.