couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Allow rewrites to be JS function
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:56:29 GMT
>  is likely to be very poor

It‘s indeed not magnificent. As for Cloudant +4...8ms per request, if
interpolated from other js-related request latencies in my conditions.
About the price of validate_doc_update plus little extra.

> I do suggest we look at Lua though

Nice idea. I‘ve tried Lua to tune up flight sim, took ~15 minutes to learn.

ermouth

2015-09-29 21:23 GMT+03:00 Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>:

> Performance is likely to be very poor but I'm not blocking it.
>
> I do suggest we look at Lua though. There's a native Erlang lua
> interpreter written by Robert Virding. Lua seems a popular choice in this
> space, haproxy 1.6 has lua hooks.
>
> > On 29 Sep 2015, at 06:06, ermouth <ermouth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > thought about your message more systematically.
> >
> > We have a distinct tradeoff (JS-provided flexibility vs performance), it
> > exists from the beginning of CouchDB. Now, with cluster, we have chance
> to
> > reduce JS-related impact.
> >
> > For prev versions I can hardly imagine more than, say, 1K simultaneous
> > highly active users per single instance, when JS is actively used. JS
> just
> > stalls on validates, updates an so on. And if we dared to have lists
> > (especially in awful ACL workarounds), 1K turned to 100-300, even for
> thick
> > i7.
> >
> > To increase number of users, to scale, I had to have smth in front of (N
> *
> > CouchDB). And that ‘smth’ is always quite complex. Moreover, it is always
> > task-specific, non-general.
> >
> > With cluster, the problem goes solved in general, and no additional
> ‘smth’
> > in front of CouchDB needed. Got 1001-th user? Add one more node, that‘s
> > all. We already have this problem nearly solved, by cluster nature.
> >
> > So why not to extend – dramatically – CouchDB playground? Shared DBs out
> of
> > the box is badly desired option, as I see.
> >
> > And it‘s a very cheap way to make ALL couchappers happy for a long time )
> >
> > BR
> >
> > ermouth
>

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