couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bob Dionne <>
Subject Re: Please report your indexing speed
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:45:00 GMT
yes, I was surprised by the 30% claim as my numbers showed it only getting back to where we
were with 1.1.x

I think Bob's suggestion to get to the root code change that caused this regression is important
as it will help us assess all the other cases this testing hasn't even touched yet

On Mar 3, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Bob Dionne wrote:

> I ran some tests, using Bob's latest script. The first versus the second clearly show
the regression. The third is the 1.2.x with the patch
> to couch_os_process reverted and it seems to have no impact. The last has Filipe's latest
patch to couch_view_updater discussed in the
> other thread and it brings the performance back to the 1.1.x level.
> I'd say that patch is a +1
> 1.2.x
> real	3m3.093s
> user	0m0.028s
> sys	0m0.008s
> ==================
> 1.1.x
> real	2m16.609s
> user	0m0.026s
> sys	0m0.007s
> =================
> 1.2.x with patch to couch_os_process reverted
> real	3m7.012s
> user	0m0.029s
> sys	0m0.008s
> =================
> 1.2.x with Filipe's katest patch to couch_view_updater
> real	2m11.038s
> user	0m0.028s
> sys	0m0.007s
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Jason Smith wrote:
>> Forgive the clean new thread. Hopefully it will not remain so.
>> If you can, would you please clone
>> And build whatever Erlangs and CouchDB checkouts you see fit, and run
>> the test. For example:
>>   docs=500000 ./ small_doc.tpl
>> That should run the test and, God willing, upload the results to a
>> couch in the cloud. We should be able to use that information to
>> identify who you are, whether you are on SSD, what Erlang and Couch
>> build, and how fast it ran. Modulo bugs.

View raw message