# MySQL 5.5 Vs 5.6 Performance **URL:** \ **Category:** Other MySQL® Questions\ **Created:** [March 18, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020 "2013-03-18T05:13:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/1 "2013-03-18T05:13:57Z")
MySQL 5.6 has huge performance gain over 5.5, it is more than 100% as per 5.6 performance white paper. I did benchmarking using Sysbench on VMWare Instance and old physical machine with Opetron processor. My sysbench results are very surprising, on both machine MySQL 5.5 have slight edge over 5.6. I am using 1000000 rows for test cases and following sysbench command. sysbench --test=oltp --oltp-table-size=1000000 --mysql-db=test --max-time=60 --max-requests=0 --num-threads=? run Xeon(R) CPU [X5670@2.93GHz](mailto:X5670@2.93GHz) 3 CPUVMWare Instance MySQL 5.6.10 MySQL 5.5.28 Read R/W Read R/W Thread Rows TPS TPS TPS TPS 4 1000000 2049 1036 2417 955 8 1000000 2071 1171 2457 1129 16 1000000 2077 1234 2509 1243 32 1000000 2013 1244 2437 1311 64 1000000 1990 1274 2424 1332 128 1000000 1900 1259 2416 1294 256 1000000 1763 1167 2416 1202 4 2000000 1980 853 2213 823 8 2000000 1968 1018 2213 945 16 2000000 1927 1052 2216 1080 32 2000000 1883 1099 2200 1198 64 2000000 1870 1152 2239 1221 128 2000000 1819 1069 2257 1255 256 2000000 1668 1021 2217 1209 Dual-Core AMD Opteron™ Processor 2216 4 CPU MySQL 5.6.10 MySQL 5.5.28 Read R/W Read R/W Thread Rows TPS TPS TPS TPS 4 1000000 1887 1026 2148 1063 8 1000000 1894 1043 2169 1128 16 1000000 1892 1067 2163 1154 32 1000000 1800 1041 2083 1143 64 1000000 1687 1009 1953 1103 128 1000000 1608 969 1845 1035 256 1000000 1572 898 1786 946 4 2000000 1718 700 1900 736 8 2000000 1735 791 1822 777 16 2000000 1701 786 1763 800 32 2000000 1623 780 1718 809 64 2000000 1381 722 1658 800 128 2000000 1210 503 1537 781 256 2000000 960 562 1459 732 Am I not using SysBench properly? Why the results are so discouraging? ---
**Author:** ![przemek](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/przemek/32/3_2.png) [@przemek](https://forums.percona.com/u/przemek)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/2 "2013-04-14T14:14:52Z")
The difference between MySQL 5.5 and 5.6 performance may depend on many factors like workload, hardware, exact MySQL version as well as whether exactly the same variables were used. Note that some variables defaults were changed in MySQL 5.6 and may affect the behaviour. For example Performance Schema overhead is lower in 5.6, hence it was decided to leave it enabled by default. But still some performance overhead exists. You can find a deeper view into this problem in following articles: [url][http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2013/02/18/is-mysql-5-6-slower-than-mysql-5-5/[/url]](http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2013/02/18/is-mysql-5-6-slower-than-mysql-5-5/%5B/url%5D) [url][http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/archives/2013/02/mysql-performance-analyzing-benchmarks-part1-mysql-56-and-mariadb-55.html[/url]](http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/archives/2013/02/mysql-performance-analyzing-benchmarks-part1-mysql-56-and-mariadb-55.html%5B/url%5D) [url][MySQL Bugs: #66473: MySQL 5.6.6-m9 has more mutex contention than MySQL 5.1](http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=66473%5B/url%5D) You may also find this news interesting: [url][http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2013/04/12/trx-descriptors-mysql-performance-improvements-in-percona-server-5-5-30-30-2/[/url]](http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2013/04/12/trx-descriptors-mysql-performance-improvements-in-percona-server-5-5-30-30-2/%5B/url%5D) Basically, latest Percona Server 5.5 has some important improvements for high concurrency workloads, so you may want to try it out. Btw. the way you pasted your results make it unclear which ones are for 5.5 and which for 5.6. Can you re-format them? ---
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/3 "2013-04-18T01:55:17Z")
I am using default parameter with both mysql 5.5 and 5.6. What I was expecting from benchmark is mysql 5.6 performance should be more atleast 1-2 % than 5.5 with default installations if mysql white paper claiming 230% performance improvements in 5.6. Here are my results: [url][http://mysqlyogi.blogspot.in/2013/04/is-mysql-56-slower-than-55.html[/url]](http://mysqlyogi.blogspot.in/2013/04/is-mysql-56-slower-than-55.html%5B/url%5D) Which particular parameter should I tune in 5.6 for better sysbench results? ---
**Author:** ![jynus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e36b37/32.png) [@jynus](https://forums.percona.com/u/jynus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:33am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/4 "2013-04-18T08:33:57Z")
> [@yogesh777;9773](#): > > mysql white paper claiming 230% performance improvements in 5.6. Well, first, I would not trust any marketing white paper without an exact method to reproduce results. The 230% can be true, but for very particular workloads. On my tests, P\_S in 5.6 still have a 5-10% overhead, which is more or less the same that Percona and Facebook are getting for 5.6.10 (see links from przemek). P\_S is disabled by default in 5.5. We may have to wait a little more to get those issues solved. For now, you can already try 5.6.11 and see if something has changed, and follow the status of several of those MySQL issues. ---
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/5 "2013-06-27T01:35:48Z")
Hi I am back again Earlier i was doing tests on virtual machine and on low configuration machine, i thought low hardware might be reason of bad sysbench results. Now I have new physical machine with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 0 @ 2.90GHz 24 core , 72 GB RAM with SAN partition mounted. The results are again disappointing, MySQL 5.5 is again winner. this time it is MySQL 5.6.12 latest version. Any views?? ---
**Author:** ![jtnix](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/jtnix/32/949_2.png) [@jtnix](https://forums.percona.com/u/jtnix)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/6 "2013-07-29T12:36:32Z")
Did you try disabling Performance Schema in 5.6 and rerunning your tests? ---
**Author:** ![scott.nemes](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/scott.nemes/32/5_2.png) [@scott.nemes](https://forums.percona.com/u/scott.nemes)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/7 "2013-07-29T17:46:12Z")
As previously mentioned, MySQL 5.6 has quite a few default value changes / new “auto sizing” variables that could result in worse performance with specific work loads / configurations / etc. What I would do is get a list of the variables that did have their default values changed, and make sure to set them to the same thing in both 5.5 and 5.6 for your testing. If the results change at that point, then I would start to remove those default values one at a time until there is a noticeable change. That (potentially) will narrow down what could be affecting your results. [url][http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/server-default-changes.html[/url]](http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/server-default-changes.html%5B/url%5D) ---
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/8 "2013-08-08T01:14:24Z")
Hi The default value changes / new “auto sizing” variables changed to default value in 5.5, here are the parameters set in my.cnf performance\_schema=OFF max\_connections=1100 back\_log=50 binlog\_checksum=NONE host\_cache\_size=128 innodb\_autoextend\_increment=8 innodb\_buffer\_pool\_instances=1 innodb\_concurrency\_tickets=500 innodb\_log\_file\_size=5MB innodb\_old\_blocks\_time=0 innodb\_stats\_on\_metadata=ON join\_buffer\_size=128KB secure\_auth=OFF table\_open\_cache=400 thread\_cache\_size=0 table\_definition\_cache=400 sync\_relay\_log\_info=0 sync\_relay\_log=0 sync\_master\_info=0 query\_cache\_type=ON max\_allowed\_packet=1MB max\_connect\_errors=0 innodb\_open\_files=300 the sysbench results are disappointing compare to 5.6 with default parameter values. [TABLE] [TR] [TD] [/TD] [TD=“colspan: 2”]MySQL 5.5.30[/TD] [TD=“colspan: 2”]5.6.10 default values[/TD] [TD=“colspan: 4”]5.6.10 default value changes to5.5.30 default values[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thread[/TD] [TD]RO TPS[/TD] [TD]R/W TPS[/TD] [TD]RO TPS[/TD] [TD]R/W TPS[/TD] [TD]RO TPS[/TD] [TD]R/W TPS[/TD] [TD=“colspan: 2”] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]1[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]616[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]390[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]497[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]311[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]432[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]330[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]4[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]2148[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1063[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1887[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1026[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]735[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]981[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]8[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]2169[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1128[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1894[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1043[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]961[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1028[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]16[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]2163[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1154[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1892[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1067[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]780[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1022[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]32[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]2083[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1143[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1800[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1041[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]676[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1026[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]64[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1953[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1103[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1687[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1009[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]640[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1018[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]128[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1852[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1035[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1608[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]969[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]616[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]980[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]256[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1843[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]946[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1572[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]898[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]592[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]896[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]512[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1832[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]828[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1493[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]823[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]565[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]531[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=“align: right”]1024[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1521[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]601[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]1541[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]366[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]545[/TD] [TD=“align: right”]534[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] MySQL 5.6 proved to be low performance versions in all conditions than 5.5.30 ---
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/9 "2013-08-08T04:04:47Z")
query\_cache\_type plays important role in performance, with query\_cache\_type=ON ( default value in 5.6 is query\_cache\_type=OFF) reduces the performance by 50 %. In previous post the stats in last two column are when query\_cache\_type=ON that is why performance was low. However, in both cases performance is lower than 5.5.30 ---
**Author:** ![nutmix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@nutmix](https://forums.percona.com/u/nutmix)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2013, 12:21pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/10 "2013-12-22T12:21:28Z")
Sorry for the beginner question. I installed mysql 5.5 on windows, found sysbench was not available on that platform. so installed unbuntu under vitual box. Installed mysql and sysbench using the ubuntu installer (which gives no options). I can run mysql and mysql admin, and can see I have a two databases: information\_schema test. When I try and run: [COLOR=#252C2F]sysbench --test=oltp --oltp-table-size=1000000 --mysql-db=test --max-time=60 --max-requests=0 --num-threads=1 run I get the following error: $ sysbench --test=oltp --oltp-table-size=1000000 --mysql-db=test --max-time=60 --max-requests=0 --num-threads=1 run sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark No DB drivers specified, using mysql ALERT: Error: failed to determine table ‘sbtest’ type! ALERT: MySQL error: FATAL: failed to get database capabilities! Anyone know what this error means? The schema is there, and is viewable by the user I am logged in as using mysql command. If I do: use test; show tables; I get: Empty Set. Is this the problem? that I need to create the test database first? If so what tables/rows etc should I create? ---
**Author:** ![Garey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@Garey](https://forums.percona.com/u/Garey)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/11 "2014-01-13T02:39:48Z")
Hi, all, I encounter the same issue, tested the same SQL on same physic machine, percona mysql 5.6 Vs MySQL 5.6 Vs MySQL 5.5.34, same configuration, but MySQL 5.5 performance is the best, percona and MySQL 5.6 almost the same. any ideas? thanks. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@MichaelV](https://forums.percona.com/u/MichaelV)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/12 "2014-02-06T10:20:45Z")
We are getting ready to migrate from 5,5 to either MySQL Community Server 5.6 or Percona Server 5.6, but now we are concerned about the implications of this thread. WIll be monitoring this thread to see if more updates are coming soon in this regard, please do! ---
**Author:** ![yogesh777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/87869e/32.png) [@yogesh777](https://forums.percona.com/u/yogesh777)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/mysql-5-5-vs-5-6-performance/2020/13 "2014-02-07T00:26:48Z")
I migrated one of the highly used word press blog to MySQL 5.6 Community Edition recently in a hope for better performance specially with FULL TEXT SEARCH in InnoDB, within 15 minutes database server hangs and forced to reboot. after proper analysis i found FULL TEXT SEARCH ( InnoDB support full text searching in 5.6 ) queries piles up and consumed all 500 connections. reverting table engine back to MyISAM database was normal. I repeat the same activity one more time and analyze the behavior for 1-2 hr, there was no performance gain. Finally i revery to MyISAM. To be very honest FULL TEXT SEARCH in InnoDB kills!!!