From dev-return-10492-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Thu Jul 01 22:43:06 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20999 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2010 22:43:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2010 22:43:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 35463 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2010 22:43:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 35381 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2010 22:43:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 35373 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2010 22:43:05 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:43:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mikeal.rogers@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.180] (HELO mail-iw0-f180.google.com) (209.85.214.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:42:58 +0000 Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so3108975iwn.11 for ; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:41:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=8GQPbJ1vuSX7n49+ih55MzqChswQ4IVEW/LW7keSEVA=; b=X4t48dmqDn3tI5flGw3gPdzCBw/sY5PkZJ1ecQ+fwekT2bniugNuVYC6g6rGxdPTu0 s9FzdLbvHS9CUzbOTNzUxKNIELZErcgBzzOLOKEQWjALD/6/H339Jz5PZjltbj7+6Amh Ypj9ABOQhb2Ena5VhOd5SJ/Pp3hUYsZBecSRg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=OvRf9f4iD6DPzGEkeiWuKc1CuQJxD82omn3eXTjqLQwRQfDjS0KuoXjvqlQ5O4u+0x 0hLDsKPmXMMzgP+iQrIYjDVFu5E59AqqZcwGhQM+s3b/5VHTSq0qFLM0lUt9wxDUOthA Enhuu0yV46hxpiiiwG47buJHKPcA/WN3smXYc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.4.221 with SMTP id 29mr148649ibs.136.1278023972282; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.37.6 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:39:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <26539173-9C8F-4364-A5A8-A5627441AE8E@apache.org> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:39:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: write performance on trunk From: Mikeal Rogers To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517741052e1e1b5048a5b24ac X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001517741052e1e1b5048a5b24ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Whoops, i read my graph wrong. We're actually slower for really small docs. The thing about the small doc test is that the docs are actually so small that they aren't realistic. I ran the test again with +A 4 added to 0.11 and it was about twice as bad. Again tho, these docs are absurdly small so I think that when the documents size increases the performance of +A balances out. Also, if you had load on more than one DB +A is going to dramatically improve the performance. -Mikeal On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > And this is the same test but with much smaller documents: > > > http://mikeal.couchone.com/graphs/_design/app/_show/compareWriteReadTest/e69057a29bd6e4ac4ae0115fac0193c9 > > The coolest part is that it looks like our read performance has stabilized > quite a bit. > > -Mikeal > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote: > >> Awesome! I think most of this is due to Adam and Randall. Nice work guys >> :) >> >> -Damien >> >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: >> >> > I don't know what we did, but in my tests the write performance on trunk >> is >> > about 3x faster than 0.11 >> > >> > >> http://mikeal.couchone.com/graphs/_design/app/_show/compareWriteReadTest/e69057a29bd6e4ac4ae0115fac018487 >> > >> > The left vertical column is the average response time in ms and the >> bottom >> > horizontal line is the duration in seconds. >> > >> > This is comparing 50 writers and 200 readers using large document. I'm >> also >> > going to run the test with small documents to see how big the difference >> is. >> > Both are running with delayed_commits = false ; >> > >> > -Mikeal >> >> > --001517741052e1e1b5048a5b24ac--