Aurora

[keith_evans]

Is anyone using 5.1 with Aurora in AWS? If so are you having performance issues? We migrated from 4.2 using MySQL to 5.1 using Aurora and are seeing a major performance impacts with CMIS Queries.

[andy1]

Hi

We did a benchmark with 1B docs using Aurora and did not hit this issue

I suspect you have not applied the optional patches that add the indexes to support queries direct to the database.

Here are the details of what you need to do.

It would help if you described your problem in more detail. Are you saying ALL queries are a problem? There are some use cases for which DB queries is not so good.

Here is some more background material.

Andy

[keith_evans]

Hi Andy, we have applied the optional patches. We migrated from 4.2 to 5.1 and ever since our select queries have been far slower. In 4.2 we could retrieve 1000 documents in 20 seconds, but in 5.1 that same query on the same data set take up to 66 seconds.

[andy1]

Hi

This sounds like it should be a support case - there is no way this question can really be answered with the information provided. It requires a methodical investigation to get to the cause and a solution.

First - why does this query take 20s in the first place? That is already more than I would expect.

• What is the query?
• What data is it supposed to match?
• How many nodes does the query actually consider? (You may be pulling back the top 1000 after sorting 100M)
• Are all queries slow - or - just this one?
• What is the DB query and plan?
• Of the 20s how much of the time is the DB query?
• What else is the DB doing?
• ...

There could be any number of issues here from the data architecture and the data model and how you planned to find stuff - all the way down to the database execution of the query. I think you should sort out the starting point before worrying about comparing the environments, database configuration, etc.

Andy

[keith_evans]

We have an ongoing support case for weeks now. I was just hoping someone had has similar experience I could leverage.  Thanks for the feedback.

[andy1]

Hi

I have asked a few questions and made the appropriate people aware of your frustration.

I still suspect the issue is the nature of the query. It would really help to have some idea of the query. 

Andy