Monday, I attended the Transaction Processing Council (TPC) Workshop about the latest developments in database benchmarks. The workshop was kicked off with a keynote from a true database hero, Michael Stonebraker. Mr. Stonebraker has not only published significant research papers—he is also initiated a number of projects and startups: Postgres (the precursor to the great PostgreSQL DBMS), Vertica (one of the pioneers within the "column-oriented"/"column-store" database realm), StreamBase, and others. Stonebraker held it that benchmarks have been instrumental in increasing competition among vendors, but there are aspects to be aware of: As the benchmarks allow the vendors to tune the DBMS (and sometimes create setups not resembling most setups, like using five figure disk counts), this doesn't improve the out-of-box experience—an experience which all too often needs to be significantly tweaked. Stonebraker also criticized the TPC from being too vendor focused, instead of having focus on users and (simple) applications. And he urged the TPC to speed up the development of new benchmark types (I'm thinking: geospatial, recovery, ...), partly by cutting down on organizational politics.
Personally, I'm astonished that some (most?) of the big DBMS vendors prohibit their users from publishing performance findings. This curbs discussion among practitioners, and it decreases reproducibility and detail of research papers ("product A performed like this, product B performed like that"). I doubt that this actually holds in a court of law, but it would certainly take guts (and a big wallet) to challenge it. I'm also annoyed that the vendors don't really support the TPC much: The TPC-E benchmark (OLTP-benchmark, sort-of modernized version of TPC-C) is two years old, yet only one vendor (Microsoft) has published any results yet.
Nevertheless, references to TPC benchmarks were prevalent at the conference, being referred to in several papers.
I'm planning to try running TPC-H on our most important database systems, to see if it is feasible to use it for regular performance measurements—in order to become aware of performance pro-/re-gressions. By the way: It would be of great if IBM (and others) published a table of reference DB2 TPC findings for a variety of normal hardware configurations. That way, a DBA like me could get an indication of whether I've set up our systems properly.
Other speakers had various ideas for new benchmarks, including benchmarks which measure performance per kWh, and benchmarks which expose how well databases handle error situations.
A researcher from VMWare pledged for benchmarks of databases running in virtual environments. He presented some numbers of a TPC-C-like workload running on ESX guests, showing that a DBMS (MSSQL, I believe) can be set up to run at 85%-92% of the native speed. Certainly acceptable. And much in like with what I'm experiencing. I hope that figures like this can gradually kill the myth that DBMSes shouldn't run in virtual hosts—a myth which results in a situation where many organizations don't realize the full potentials of virtualization (increased overall hardware utilization/lower need for manpower/less late-night service windows, as workloads can be switched to other hosts when a server needs hardware service).
I forgot to take a picture from the workshop, so here's a picture of me being sceptical about traditional DBMS vendors—next to the Saôme river.