Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

As it is well known performance impact is quite significant when using the new SSD as opposed the old disk drives. If MySQL database including all the data is on SSD, how does that compare to NoSQL database on SSD such as MongoDB in terms of run time performance?

This will be used in application requiring hundreds if not thousands of queries and updates per second.

share|improve this question

migrated from Jun 14 '11 at 4:28

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

closed as not constructive by John Gardeniers, RobM, Bart De Vos, theotherreceive, EEAA Jun 15 '11 at 4:15

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

It depends. NoSQL isn't about performance. It's about being non-relational. – p.campbell Jun 13 '11 at 22:35
Bunch of questions here: 1) Are you comparing MySQL+SSD to NoSQL+HD, or to NoSQL+SSD? 2) What kind of queries / requests are you making of the database? 3) Why do you want to know (because that information will help drive the correct answer)? The answer may be: Try it and find out. – Slartibartfast Jun 14 '11 at 4:34
Ist it correct.....? - No. Apples and Oranges. In some cases it will be faster, in other slower. – symcbean Jun 14 '11 at 9:39

I might be wrong on this as I'm far from a NoSQL expert but I believe the overhead of a traditional RDBMS is not entirely limited to disk i/o. NoSQL databases like MongoDB lack features like transactions which make MySQL more stable. Something like memcached might be a better way to go to speed up mysql performance while maintaining the reliability of an RDBMS

share|improve this answer

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