couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Dionne <>
Subject Re: Ready for 0.10 Release?
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:14:15 GMT
I've tested with this quite a bit now and it's much faster, in some  
cases 4 times, but it is sensitive to both doc size and batch sizes so  
in some cases the speed may only be about 4-10% better. It's  
definitely much improved in the file footprint resulting in faster  
compaction also.

It's interesting to note that a good amount of the speed improvement  
comes from a reduced number of calls to couch_util:to_hex because it's  
only used for the prefix and not for every id as it is in the  
new_uuid() case. In one of the hovercraft tests I ran this method was  
cut from 36% to 25% of the run time. You can see this using eprof.  
This method is also used in the rev stuff so it's a good candidate to  
look at for optimization.

So I"m +1 on this, but I think the other devs ought to noodle it some  
to double check it conceptually, .ie. that we have global uniqueness  
and it won't present issues elsewhere. Definitely a nice hack.



On Aug 17, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Robert Newson wrote:

> I was hoping for more feedback on COUCHDB-465 as the alternate uuid
> generation algorithm there seems to double insertion speed and reduces
> the  need to run compaction.
> B.
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Noah Slater<>  
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:58:56PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>> We've been sprinting extra hard for the last week to get a lot of  
>>> new
>>> power into CouchDB. I think we're close on Windows support, we just
>>> got native view servers, we've added a bunch of robustness around
>>> external process handling. There's a bunch more that's happened  
>>> since
>>> 0.9 but the point of this thread is not to list the changes, but to
>>> see if there are patches that people feel should go in now, so they
>>> make the 0.10 release. Hopefully this is a short list, as I think  
>>> most
>>> of the last-minute patching has been done, but if something's
>>> important and easy, we shouldn't forget it.
>> I don't want to be the damp squid[1] here, but for now, shipping  
>> with the recent
>> changes for Windows, or at least claiming Windows support, will get  
>> my -0 or -1
>> vote depending on how convincing people's arguments get.
>> I wasn't even aware that this had properly landed yet, and it would  
>> certainly
>> need to be simmered in trunk for a few months, with a wide call for  
>> testing,
>> before I would be happy shipping it.
>> [1]
>> Best,
>> --
>> Noah Slater,

View raw message