Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Benoit Chesneau (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <44281778.12456.1300475009665.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <1530361489.4886.1300222469693.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-1092) Storing documents bodies as raw
 JSON binaries instead of serialized JSON terms
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1092?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13008578#comment-13008578 ] 

Benoit Chesneau commented on COUCHDB-1092:
------------------------------------------

i'm +1 ofor using trunk as trunk (should be another ticket) , but at some point we should all agree on one policy. Last commits tend to show that some here are preferring using tickets with patches .

> Storing documents bodies as raw JSON binaries instead of serialized JSON terms
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1092
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1092
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Database Core
>            Reporter: Filipe Manana
>            Assignee: Filipe Manana
>
> Currently we store documents as Erlang serialized (via the term_to_binary/1 BIF) EJSON.
> The proposed patch changes the database file format so that instead of storing serialized
> EJSON document bodies, it stores raw JSON binaries.
> The github branch is at:  https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/tree/raw_json_docs
> Advantages:
> * what we write to disk is much smaller - a raw JSON binary can easily get up to 50% smaller
>   (at least according to the tests I did)
> * when serving documents to a client we no longer need to JSON encode the document body
>   read from the disk - this applies to individual document requests, view queries with
>   ?include_docs=true, pull and push replications, and possibly other use cases.
>   We just grab its body and prepend the _id, _rev and all the necessary metadata fields
>   (this is via simple Erlang binary operations)
> * we avoid the EJSON term copying between request handlers and the db updater processes,
>   between the work queues and the view updater process, between replicator processes, etc
> * before sending a document to the JavaScript view server, we no longer need to convert it
>   from EJSON to JSON
> The changes done to the document write workflow are minimalist - after JSON decoding the
> document's JSON into EJSON and removing the metadata top level fields (_id, _rev, etc), it
> JSON encodes the resulting EJSON body into a binary - this consumes CPU of course but it
> brings 2 advantages:
> 1) we avoid the EJSON copy between the request process and the database updater process -
>    for any realistic document size (4kb or more) this can be very expensive, specially
>    when there are many nested structures (lists inside objects inside lists, etc)
> 2) before writing anything to the file, we do a term_to_binary([Len, Md5, TheThingToWrite])
>    and then write the result to the file. A term_to_binary call with a binary as the input
>    is very fast compared to a term_to_binary call with EJSON as input (or some other nested
>    structure)
> I think both compensate the JSON encoding after the separation of meta data fields and non-meta data fields.
> The following relaximation graph, for documents with sizes of 4Kb, shows a significant
> performance increase both for writes and reads - especially reads.   
> http://graphs.mikeal.couchone.com/#/graph/698bf36b6c64dbd19aa2bef63400b94f
> I've also made a few tests to see how much the improvement is when querying a view, for the
> first time, without ?stale=ok. The size difference of the databases (after compaction) is
> also very significant - this change can reduce the size at least 50% in common cases.
> The test databases were created in an instance built from that experimental branch.
> Then they were replicated into a CouchDB instance built from the current trunk.
> At the end both databases were compacted (to fairly compare their final sizes).
> The databases contain the following view:
> {
>     "_id": "_design/test",
>     "language": "javascript",
>     "views": {
>         "simple": {
>             "map": "function(doc) { emit(doc.float1, doc.strings[1]); }"
>         }
>     }
> }
> ## Database with 500 000 docs of 2.5Kb each
> Document template is at:  https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/doc_2_5k.json
> Sizes (branch vs trunk):
> $ du -m couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test.couch 
> 1996	couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test.couch
> $ du -m couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test.couch 
> 2693	couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test.couch
> Time, from a user's perpective, to build the view index from scratch:
> $ time curl http://localhost:5984/disk_json_test/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"0000076a-c1ae-4999-b508-c03f4d0620c5","key":null,"value":"wfxuF3N8XEK6"}
> ]}
> real	6m6.740s
> user	0m0.016s
> sys	0m0.008s
> $ time curl http://localhost:5985/disk_ejson_test/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"0000076a-c1ae-4999-b508-c03f4d0620c5","key":null,"value":"wfxuF3N8XEK6"}
> ]}
> real	15m41.439s
> user	0m0.012s
> sys	0m0.012s
> ## Database with 100 000 docs of 11Kb each
> Document template is at:  https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/doc_11k.json
> Sizes (branch vs trunk):
> $ du -m couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test_11kb.couch
> 1185	couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test_11kb.couch
> $ du -m couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test_11kb.couch
> 2202	couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test_11kb.couch
> Time, from a user's perpective, to build the view index from scratch:
> $ time curl http://localhost:5984/disk_json_test_11kb/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":100000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"00001511-831c-41ff-9753-02861bff73b3","key":null,"value":"2fQUbzRUax4A"}
> ]}
> real	4m19.306s
> user	0m0.008s
> sys	0m0.004s
> $ time curl http://localhost:5985/disk_ejson_test_11kb/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":100000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"00001511-831c-41ff-9753-02861bff73b3","key":null,"value":"2fQUbzRUax4A"}
> ]}
> real	18m46.051s
> user	0m0.008s
> sys	0m0.016s
> All in all, I haven't seen yet any disadvantage with this approach. Also, the code changes
> don't bring additional complexity. I say the performance and disk space gains it gives are
> very positive.
> This branch still needs to be polished in a few places. But I think it isn't far from getting mature.
> Other experiments that can be done are to store view values as raw JSON binaries as well (instead of EJSON)
> and optional compression of the stored JSON binaries (since it's pure text, the compression ratio is very high).
> However, I would prefer to do these other 2 suggestions in separate branches/patches - I haven't actually tested
> any of them yet, so maybe they not bring significant gains.
> Thoughts? :)

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira