Mark has some good thoughts on drizzle. I think they’re all valid… and have some extra thoughts too:

“I have problems to solve today”. This is (of course) an active concern in my brain… If we don’t have something out that solves some set of problems with reasonable stability and reliability (and soon), then we are failing. I feel we’re getting there, and will have a solid foundation to build upon.

Drizzle replication, MySQL replication: “I can’t compare the two until Drizzle replication is running in production.“. Completely agree. We need to only say replication is stable and reliable when it really is. Realistic test suites are needed. Very defensive programming of the replication system is needed (you want to know when something has gone wrong). We also need to have it constantly be verifying the right thing is going on. We want our problems to be user visible, not silent and invisible. Having high standards will hopefully pay off when people start running it in production….

3 byte int: “Does this mean that some of my tables will grow from 3GB to 4GB on disk?” I think we’re moving the responsibility down to the engines. The 3 byte int type says two things: use less storage space, limit the maximum value. Often you want the former, not the latter. There are many ways to more efficiently pack integers for storage when they are usually smaller than the maximum you want. The protobuf library does a good job of it.

I think it is the job of storage engines to do better here. Once you’re in memory, 3 byte numbers are horrible to work with.. copy out of a row buffer, convert into a 32bit number and then do foo. Modern CPUs favor 32 or 64bit alignment of data a *lot*. 3byte numbers do not align to 32 or 64bits very well… making things much slower for the common case of using cached data.

“I need stored procedures. They are required for high-performance OLTP as they minimize transaction duration for multi-statement transactions.” The reduction of network round trips is always crucial. I think a lot of round trips could go away if you could issue multiple statements at once (not via semicolon separating them, by protocol awesomeness).

There should be a way to send a set of statements that should be executed. There should also be a way to specify that if no error occurred, commit. This could then be (in the common case) a single round trip to the database. You then only have to make round-trips when what statement to issue next depends on the result of a previous one. The next step being to reduce these round trips… which can either be solved by executing something inside the database server (e.g. stored procedures) or something closer to the database server so that the round trips aren’t as large. This would be where Gearman enters.

I’m interested to see where these two approaches (issuing in batches and executing closer to the DB server) fall down… I know that latency may not be as good… but throughput should be a lot better.

I take heart with “I have yet to use them in MySQL” though. I have my own theories as to why this is… my biggest thought is that it’s because the many, many programmers writing SQL that Mark sees aren’t SQL Stored Procedure programmers. They spend their days in a couple of languages (maybe Perl, Python, PHP, Java, C, C++) and never programmed SQL:2003 Stored Procedures and it just doesn’t come as quickly (or as bug free) as writing code in the languages you use every day.

“Long Running insert, update and delete statements consume too many resources in InnoDB.” I wonder if this desire for MyISAM could be filled by PBXT or BlitzDB? The main reason that MyISAM is currently a temporary table only engine is that MyISAM and the server core were never that well separated.

My ultimate wish is that all engine authors take the approach of that there is an API to their engine and the Storage Engine is merely glue between the database server and their API.

The BlitzDB engine has this, Innobase partially does (and my Embedded InnoDB work goes the whole way) and MySQL Cluster is likely the oldest example.

As a side note, the BlitzDB plugin should go into the main Drizzle tree fairly soon. One of the joys of having an optional plugin that doesn’t touch the core of the server is that we can do this without much worry at all.

“Does Drizzle build on Windows?” Well… no. Funnily enough though, it is increasingly easy to make a Windows port. All the platform specific things are increasingly just plugins. The build system is a sticker… and no, we’re not going to switch to CMake. The C stands for something, and it’s something that even I may not print here… (I had never thought that being able to open up automake generated Makefiles and look at them would be a feature).

This next Drizzle milestone release should be exciting though…

I look forward to having Drizzle widely deployed and relied upon… I think we’ll do well..