couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Volker Mische <volker.mis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 1.0.0 wishlist/roadmap
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:47:11 GMT
Hi,

my wishlist item might be combined with the Full-text indexing
integration. It's about the intersection between externally retrieved
results and a view.

I'd like to be able to have an external service (e.g. a spatial index)
that gets updated via the db notifier interface. It should be possible
to query it like it is done in the external2 branch, but instead of
returning a result directly to the client, the result will be returned
to the view. The returned result hast to include the document ID, so it
can be intersected with the IDs the view returns.

An additional feature would be that you can return any arbitrary JSON to
the view that will be attached to the resulting document. An example
would be returning a distance between a point specified in the query and
a geometry in a document.

Cheers,
  Volker

Damien Katz wrote:
> Here is some stuff I'd like to see in a 1.0.0 release. Everything is
> open for discussion.
> 
> - Built-in reduce functions to avoid unnecessary JS overhead -
> 
> Count, Sum, Avg, Min, Max, Std dev. others?
> 
> - Restrict database read access -
> 
> Right now any user can read any database, we need to be able to restrict
> that at least on a whole database level.
> 
> - Replication performance enhancements -
> 
> Adam Kocoloski has some replication patches that greatly improve
> replication performance.
> 
> - Revision stemming: It should be possible to limit the number of
> revisions tracked -
> 
> By default each document edit produces a revision id that is tracked
> indefinitely. This guarantees conflicts versus subsequent edits can
> always be distinguished in ad-hoc replication, however the forever
> growing list of revisions isn't always desirable. THis can be addressed
> by limiting the number tracked and purging the oldest revisions. The
> downside is that if the revision tracking limited is N, then anyone who
> hasn't replicated a document since its last N edits will see a spurious
> edit conflict.
> 
> - Lucene/Full-text indexing integration -
> 
> We have this working to in side patches, this needs to be integrated to
> trunk and with the view engine
> 
> - Incremental document replication -
> 
> We need at the minimum the ability to incrementally replicate only the
> attachments that have changed in a document. This will save lots of
> network IO and CouchDB can be version control system with document diffs
> added as attachments.
> 
> This can work for document fields too, but the overhead may not be worth
> it.
> 
> - Built-in authentication module(s) -
> 
> The ability to host a CouchDB database used for HTTP authentication
> schemes. If storing passwords, they would need to be stored encrypted,
> decrypted on demand by the authentication process.
> 
> - View server enhancements (stale/partial index option) -
> 
> Chris Anderson has a side branch for this we need to finish and put into
> trunk.
> 
> - View index compaction -
> 
> Views indexes expand forever, and need to be compacted in a similar way
> the storage files are compacted. This work will tie into the View Server
> enhancements.
> 
> - Document integrity/deterministic revid -
> 
> For the sake of end to end document integrity, we need a way to hash a
> document's contents, and since we already have revision ids, I think the
> revision ids should be the hashes. The hashed document should be a
> canonical json representation, and it should have the _id and _rev
> fields in it. The _rev will be the PREVIOUS revision ID/hash the edit is
> based on, or blank if a new edit. Then the _rev is replaced with the new
> hash value.
> 
> - Fully tail append writes -
> 
> CouchDB uses zero-overwrite storage, but not fully tail append storage.
> Document json bodies are stored in internal buffers, written
> consecutively, one after another until the buffers in completely full,
> then another buffer is created at the end of the file for more
> documents. File attachments are written to similar buffers as well.
> Btree updates are always tail append, each update to a btree, even if
> its a deletion, causes new writes to the end of the file. Once the
> document, attachments and indexes are commited (fsync), the header is
> then written and flushed to disk, and that is always stored right at the
> beginning of the file (requiring another seek).
> 
> Document updates to CouchDB require 2 fsyncs with ~3 seeks for full
> committal and index consistency. This is true if you write 1 or 1000
> documents in a single transaction (bulk update), you still need ~ 3
> seeks. Using conventional transaction journalling, it's possible to get
> the committal down to a single seek and fsync, and worry about ensuring
> file and index consistency asynchronously, often in batch mode with
> other committed updates. This can perform very well, but has downsides
> like extra complexity and increased memory usage as data is cached
> waiting to be flushed to disk, and must do special consistency checks
> and fix-ups on startup if there is a crash.
> 
> If CouchDB used tail-append storage for everything, then all document
> updates can be completely flushed with full file consistency with a
> single seek and, depending on the file system, a single fsync. All the
> disk updates, documents, file attachments, indexes and file header,
> occur as appends to the end of the file.
> 
> The biggest changes will be in how file attachments and the headers are
> written and read, and the performance characteristics of view indexing
> as documents will no longer be packed into contiguous buffers.
> 
> File attachment will be written in chunks with the last chunk being an
> index to the other chunks.
> 
> Headers will be specially signed blocks written to the end of the file.
> Reading the header on database open will require scanning the file from
> the end, since the file might have partial updates that didn't complete
> since the last update.
> 
> The performance of the views will be impacted as the documents are more
> likely to be fragmented across the storage file. But they will still be
> in the order they will be accessed for indexing, so the read seeks are
> always moving forward. Also, the act of compacting the storage file will
> result in the documents being tightly packed again.
> 
> - Streaming document updates with attachment writes -
> 
> Using mime mulitpart encoding, it should be possible to send all parts
> of a document in a single http request, with the json and binary
> attachments sent as different mime parts. Attachments can be streamed to
> disk as bytes are received, keeping total memory overhead to a minimum.
> Attachments can also be written to disk in compressed format and served
> over http by default in that compressed format, using 0% CPU for
> compression at read time, but will require decompression if the client
> doesn't support the compression format.
> 
> 
> - Partitioning/Clustering Support -
> 
> Clustering for failover and load balancing is priority. Large database
> support via partitioning may not make 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message