couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russell Branca <chewbra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: All The Numbers -- View Engine Performance Benchmarks
Date Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:42:35 GMT
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 13:22 , Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> * Very little difference in different implementations (because stdio is
> the
> >> bottleneck)
> >
> > Why stdio is a bottleneck? I'm interesting underlay reasons.
>
> It is actually not the the stdio, but the serialisation form erlang-terms
> to JSON to JS Objects to JSON to erlang terms.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
Yeah serialization overhead is the main reason I wanted to do "end to end"
performance tests, as I truly am curious whether native view engines are
strictly faster, or faster for docs once they reach a certain size or
something else entirely.

My prediction is that bulk processing of views (whenever that gets added)
will be an order of magnitude faster than the current system and make most
of these comparison benchmarks irrelevant, but we should at least get that
data together first.


-Russell


>
> >
> > As for my experience, the protocol design doesn't allows view and
> > query servers works faster as they can. For example, we have 50 ddocs
> > with validate functions. For each document save there would be
> > executed from 100 commands (50 resets + 50 ddoc validate_doc_update
> > calls) till 150 commands (+ddocs caches), while it's possible to
> > process them in bulk mode.
> >
> > --
> > ,,,^..^,,,
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message