couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tail Append Headers
Date Mon, 18 May 2009 23:43:38 GMT
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Damien Katz <damien@apache.org> wrote:
> Feedback on all this welcome. Please try out the branch to shake out any
> bugs or performance problems that might be lurking.
>

The code looks simpler, which is a nice surprise considering the
storage is actually more robust.

Here are comparative benchmarks on my MacBook. Two runs of
hovercraft:lightning() which factors out all http / json overhead, and
inserts small documents in batches of 1000. I've also done a round of
running my curl/bash benchmark script to insert 100k docs (with
sequential ids)

append only:
2> hovercraft:lightning().
Inserted 100000 docs in 27.614173 seconds with batch size of 1000.
(3621.328800974775 docs/sec)
3> hovercraft:lightning().
Inserted 100000 docs in 27.508795 seconds with batch size of 1000.
(3635.201032978726 docs/sec)

curl/bash: 2285.7 docs/sec

trunk:
2> hovercraft:lightning().
Inserted 100000 docs in 13.237762 seconds with batch size of 1000.
(7554.146992520337 docs/sec)
3> hovercraft:lightning().
Inserted 100000 docs in 13.032335 seconds with batch size of 1000.
(7673.222028132334 docs/sec)

curl/bash: 3417.6 docs/sec

So the preliminary results are that the append-only (on my particular
hardware with a contrived micro-benchmark) is about twice as slow.

It's a matter of priorities. Do we want absolute robustness, or do we
want more performance? Also, the append-only stuff is brand-new and
could conceivably be optimized. I would not be surprised at all to see
it get faster than trunk, with enough tuning.

Chris

-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io

Mime
View raw message