couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reddy B. <redd...@live.fr>
Subject Re: CouchDB Next
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:04:33 GMT
I've been very busy with work for one month only and when I catch up 2.0 
is out and you're even talking about 3.0, congratulations.

I'd like to contribute to this list, I've not read the source code of 
CouchDb yet so I can't be too precise but as the head of development of 
several companies, I thought my proposition could be valuable.

The one big regret I have with CouchDb is the difficulty to extend it. 
Namely the necessity to rebuild CouchDb from sources to add things such 
as Lucene, or even GeoCouch. To take our example, we would have 
contributed a number of extensions to CouchDb already if it wasn't for 
that. Perhaps it's just me, but there really is a psychological 
threshold to pass to get into building a third-party project, and 
another one to get into forking it. I personally don't know if I'll ever 
get around it, because there's too much cost and maintenance 
requirements involved.

I'm not sure exactly what the limitation is and if this is achievable, 
but some sort of language agnostic plugin architecture/extendability 
pipeline would be absolutely great and in my opinion can be an 
interesting priority for a version 3.0, as it would dramatically help 
boost the number of contributions to the CouchDb ecosystem. I'm not sure 
I have the terminology right, but it might all come down to making the 
creation of custom indexes rebuild-free and language agnostic. I'm 
thinking of something in the idea of COM APIs 
<https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms680573%28v=vs.85%29.aspx>.

If you find the idea interesting, I'd be happy to start getting my hands 
dirty and work on it.


On 27/09/2016 14:56, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> apologies in advance, this is going to be a long email.
>
>
> I’ve been holding this back intentionally in order to be able to focus on shipping
2.0, but now that that’s out, I feel we should talk about what’s next.
>
> This email is separated into areas of work that I think CouchDB could improve on, some
with very concrete plans, some with rather vague ideas. I’ve been collecting these over
the past year or <strike>two</strike>five, so it’s fairly wide, but I’m sure
I’m missing things that other people find important, so please add to this list.
>
> After the initial discussion here, I’ll move all of the individual issues to JIRA,
so we can go down our usual process.
>
> This is basically my wish list, and I’d like this to become everyone’s wish list,
so please add what I’ve been missing. :) — Note, this isn’t a free-for-all, only suggest
things that you are prepared to see through being shipped, from design, implementation to
docs.
>
> I don’t have a specific order for these in mind, although I have a rough idea of what
we should be doing first. Putting all of this on a roadmap is going to be a fun future exercise
for us, though :)
>
> One last note: this doesn’t include anything on documentation or testing. I fully expect
to step our game from here on out. This list is for the technical aspects of the project.
>
> * * *
>
> These are the areas of work I’ve roughly come up with that my suggestions fit into:
>
> - API
> - Storage
> - Query
> - Replication
> - Cluster
> - Fauxton
> - Releases
> - Performance
> - Internals
> - Builds
> - Features
>
> (I’m not claiming these are any good, but it’s what I’ve got)
>
>
> Let’s go.
>
>
> * * *
>
> # API
>
> ## HTTP2
>
> I think this is an obvious first next step. Our HTTP Layer needs work, our existing HTTP
server library is not getting HTTP2 support, it’s time to attack this head-first. I’m
imagining a Cowboy[1]-based HTTP layer that calls into a unified internals layer and everything
will be rose-golden. HTTP2 support for Cowboy is still in progress. Maybe we can help them
along, or we focus on the internals refactor first and drop Cowboy in later (not sure how
feasible this approach is, but we’ll figure this out.
>
> In my head, we focus on this and call the result 3.0 in 6-12 months. That doesn’t mean
we *only* do this, but this will be the focus (more on this later).
>
> There are a few fun considerations, mainly of the “avoid Python 2/3-chasm”-type.
Do we re-implement the 2.0 API with all its idiosyncrasies, or do we take the opportunity
to clean things up while we are at it? If yes, how and how long do we support the then old
API? Do we manage this via different ports? If yes, how can this me made to work for hosting
services like Cloudant? Etc. etc.
>
> [1] https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy
>
>
> ## Sub-Document Operations
>
> Currently a doc update needs the whole doc body sent to the server. There are some obvious
performance improvements possible. For the longest time, I wanted to see if we can model sub-document
operations via JSON Pointers[2]. These would roughly allow pointing to a JSON value via a
URL.
>
> For example in this doc:
>
> {
>    "_id": "123abc",
>    "_rev": "zyx987",
>    "contact": {
>      "name": "",
>      "address": {
>        "street": "Long Street",
>        "nr": 123
>        "zip": "12345"
>      }
> }
>
> An update to the zip code could look like this:
>
> curl -X POST $SERVER/db/123abc/_jsonpointer/contact/address/zip?rev=zyx987 -d '54321'
>
> GET/DELETE accordingly. We could shortcut the `_jsonpointer` to just `_` if we like the
short magic.
>
> JSONPointer can deal with nested objects and lists and works fairly well for this type
of stuff, and it is rather simple to implement (even I could do it: https://github.com/janl/erl-jsonpointer/blob/master/src/jsonpointer.erl
— This idea is literally 5 years old, it looks like, no need to use my code if there is
anything better).
>
> This is just a raw idea, and I’m happy to solve this any other way, if somebody has
a good approach.
>
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6901
>
>
> ## HTTP PATCH / JSON Diff
>
> Another stab at a similar problem are HTTP PATCH with JSON Diff, but with the inherent
problems of JSON normalisation, I’m leaning towards the JSONPointer variant as simpler,
but I’d be open for this as well, if someone comes up with a good approach.
>
>
> ## GraphQL[3]
>
> It’s rather new, but getting good traction[4]. This would be a nice addition to our
API. Somebody might already be hacking on this ;)
>
> [3]: http://graphql.org
> [4]: http://githubengineering.com/the-github-graphql-api/
>
>
> ## Mango for Document Validation
>
> The only place where we absolutely require writing JS is validate_doc_update functions.
Some security behaviour can only be enforced there. With their inherent performance problems,
I’d like to get doc validations out of the path of the query server and would love to find
a way to validate document updates through Mango.
>
>
> ## Redesign Security System
>
> Our security system is slowly grown and not coherently designed. We should start over.
I have many ideas and opinions, but they are out of scope for this. I think everybody here
agrees that we can do better. This *very likely* will *not* include per-document ACLs as per
the often stated issues with that approach in our data model.
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Replication
>
> This is our flagship feature of course, and there are a few things we can do better.
>
>
> ## Mobile-optimised extension or new version of the protocol
>
> The original protocol design didn’t take mobile devices into account and through PouchDB
et.al. we are now learning that there are number of downsides to our protocol. We’ve helped
a lot with introducing _bulk_get/_revs, but that’s more a bandaid than a considered strategy
;)
>
> That new version could also be HTTP2-only, to take advantage of the new connection semantics
there.
>
>
> ## Easy way to skip deletes on sync
>
> This one is self-explanatory, mobile clients usually don’t need to sync deletes from
a year ago first. Mango filters might already get us there, maybe we can do better.
>
>
> ## Sync a rolling subset
>
> Say you always want to keep the last 90 days of email on a mobile device with optionally
back-loading older documents on user-request. It is something I could see getting a lot of
traction.
>
> Today, this can be built on 1.x with clever use of _purge, but that’s hardly a good
experience. I don’t know if it can be done in a cluster.
>
>
> ## Selective Sync
>
> There might be other criteria than “last 90 days”, so the more general solution to
this problem class would be arbitrary (e.g. client-directed) selective sync, but this might
be really hard as opposed to just very hard of the “last 90 days” one, so happy to punt
on this first. But filters are generally not the answer, especially with large data sets.
Maybe proper sync from views _changes is the answer.
>
>
> ## A _db_updates powered _replicator DB
>
> Running thousands+ of replications on a server is not really resource friendly today,
we should teach the replicator to only run replication on active databases via _db_updates.
Somebody might already be looking into this one.
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Storage
>
>
> ## Pluggable Storage Engines
>
> Paul Davis already showed some work on allowing multiple different storage backends.
I’d like to see this land.
>
> ## Different Storage Backends
>
> These don’t all have to be supported by the main project, but I’d really like to
see some experimentation with different backends like LevelDB[5]/RocksDB[6], InnoDB[7], SQLite[8]
a native-erlang one that is optimised for space usage and not performance (I don’t want
to budge on safety). Similarly, it’d be fun to see if there is a compression format that
we can use as a storage backend directly, so we get full-DB compression as opposed to just
per-doc compression.
>
> [5]: http://leveldb.org
> [6]: http://rocksdb.org
> [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InnoDB
> [8]: https://www.sqlite.org
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Query
>
> ## Teach Mango JOINs and result sorting
>
> It’s the natural path for query languages. We should make these happen. Once we have
the basics, we might even be able to find a way to compile basic SQL into Mango, it’s going
to be glorious :)
>
>
> ## “No-JavaScript”-mode
>
> I’ve hinted at this above, but I’d really like a way for users to use CouchDB productively
without having to write a line of JavaScript. My main motivation is the poor performance characteristics
of the Query Server (hello CGI[9]?). But even with one that is improved, it will always faster
to do any, say filtering or validation operations in native Erlang. I don’t know if we can
expand Mango to cover all this, and I’m not really concerned about the specifics, as long
as we get there.
>
> Of course, for pro-users, the JS-variant will still be around.
>
> [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface
>
>
> ## Query Server V2
>
> We need to revamp the Query Server. It is hardcoded to an out-of-date version of SpiderMonkey
and we are stuck with C-bindings that barely anyone dares to look at, let alone iterate on.
>
> I believe the way forward is re-vamping the query server protocol to use streaming IO
instead of blocking batches like we do now, and use JS-native implementation of the JS-side
instead of C-bindings.
>
> I’m partial to doing this straight in Node, because there is a ton of support for things
we need already, and I believe we’ve solved the isolation issues required for secure MapReduce,
but I’m happy to use any other thing as well, if it helps.
>
> Other benefits would be support for emerging JS features that devs will want to use.
>
> And we can have two modes: standalone QS like now, and embedded QS where, say, V8 is
compiled into the Erlang VM. Not everybody will want to run this, but it’ll be neat for
those who do.
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Cluster
>
> ## Rebalancing
>
> With this we will be able to grow clusters one by one instead of hitting a wall when
eventually each shard lives on a single machine. E.g. when you add a node to the cluster,
all other nodes share 1/Nth of their data with the new node, and everything can keep going.
Same for removing a node and shrinking the cluster.
>
> Couchbase has this and it is really nice.
>
>
> ## Setup
>
> Even without rebalancing, we need a nice Fauxton UI to manage the cluster, so far we
only have a simple setup procedure (which is great don’t get me wrong), but users will want
to do more elaborate cluster management and we should make that easy with a slick UI.
>
>
> ## Cluster-Aware Clients
>
> This might end up being not a good idea, but I’d like some experimentation here. Say
you’d have a CouchDB client that could be hooked into the cluster topology so it’d know
which nodes to query for which data, then we can save a proxy-hop, and build clients that
have lower-latency access to CouchDB. Again, this is something that Couchbase does and I think
is worth exploring.
>
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Fauxton
>
> Fauxton is great, but it could be better too, I think. I’m mostly concerned about number
of clicks/taps required for more specialised actions (like setting the group_level of a reduce
query, it’s like 15 or so). More cluster info would also be nice, and maybe a specialised
dashboard for db-per-user setups.
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Releases
>
>
> ## Six-Week Release Trains
>
> We need to get back to frequent releases and I propose to go back to our six-week-release
train plans from three years ago. Whatever lands within a release train time frame goes out.
The nature of the change dictates the version number increment as per semver, and we just
ship a new version every six weeks, even if it only includes a single bug fix. We should automate
most of this infrastructure, so actual releases are cheap. We are reasonably close with this,
but we need some more folks to step up on using and maintaining our CI systems.
>
>
> ## One major feature per major version
>
> I also propose to keep the scope of future major versions small, so we don’t have to
wait another 3-5 years for 3.0. In particular, I think we should focus on a single major feature
per major version and get that shipped within 6-12 months tops. If anything needs more time,
it needs to be broken up. Of course we continue to add features and fix things while this
happens, but as a project, there is *one* major feature we push. For example, for 3.0 I see
our push be behind HTTP2 support. There is a lot of subsequent work required to make that
happen, so it’ll be a worthwhile 3.0, but we can ship it in 6-12 months (hopefully).
>
> Best case scenario, we have CouchDB 4.0 coming out 12 months from now with two new major
features. That would be amazing.
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Performance
>
> ## Perf Team
>
> We need a team to comprehensive look at CouchDB performance. There is a lot of low-hanging
fruit like Robert Kowalski showed a while back, we should get back into this. I’m mostly
inspired by SQLite who’ve done a release a while back that only focussed on 1-2% performance
improvements, but got like 20-30 of those and made the thing a lot faster across the board.
I can’t remember where I read about this, but I’ll update this once I find the link.
>
>
> ## Benchmark Suite
>
> We need a benchmark suite that tests a variety of different work loads. The goal here
is to run different versions of CouchDB against the same suite on the same hardware, to see
where are going. I’m imagining a http://arewefastyet.com style dashboard where we can track
this, and even run this on Pull Requests and not allow them if they significantly impact performance.
>
>
> ## Synthetic Load Suite
>
> This one is for end users. I’d like to be able to say: My app produces mostly 10-20kb-sized
docs, but millions of those in a single database, or across 1000s of databases, with these
views etc. and then run this on target hardware so I’d know, e.g. how many nodes I need
for a cluster with my estimated workload. I know this can only be done in approximation, but
I think this could make a big difference in CouchDB adoption and feed back into Perf Team
mentioned above.
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Internals
>
> ## Consolidate Repositories
>
> With 2.0 we started to experiment with radically small modules for our components and
I think we’ve come to the conclusion that some consolidation is better for us going forward.
Obvious candidates for separate repos are docs, Fauxton etc. but also some of the Erlang modules
that other projects reasonably would use.
>
>
> ## Elixir
>
> I’d like it very much if we elevate Elixir as a prime target language for writing CouchDB
internals. I believe this would get us an influx of new developers that we badly need to get
all the things I’m listing here done. Somebody might be looking into the technical aspects
of this already, but we need to decide as a project if we are okay with that.
>
>
> ## GitHub Issues
>
> I hope we can transition to GitHub Issues soon.
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Builds
>
> I’d like automated builds for source, Docker et.al., rpm, deb, brew, ports, Mac Binary,
etc with proper release channels for people to subscribe to, all powered by CI for nightly
builds, so people can test in-development versions easily.
>
> I’d also like builds that include popular community plugins like Geo or Fulltext Search.
>
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> # Features
>
> ## Better Support for db-per-user
>
> I don’t know what this will look like, but this is a pattern, and we need to support
it better.
>
> One approach could be “virtual dbs” that are backed by a single database, but that’s
usually at odds with views, so we could make this an XOR and disable views on these dbs. Since
this usually powers client-heavy apps, querying usually happens there anyway.
>
> Another approach would be better / easier cross-db aggregation or querying. There are
a few approaches, but nothing really slick.
>
>
> ## Schema Extraction
>
> I have half an (old) patch that extracts top level fields from a document and stores
them with a hash in an “attachment” to the database header. So we only end up storing
doc values and the schema hash. First of all this trades storage for CPU time (I haven’t
measured anything yet), but more interestingly, we could use that schema data to do smart
things like auto-generating a validation function / mango expression based on the data that
is already in the database. And other fun things like easier schema migration operations that
are native in CouchDB and thus a lot faster than external ones. For the curious ones, I’ve
got the idea from V8’s property access optimisation strategy[10].
>
> [10]: https://github.com/v8/v8/wiki/Design%20Elements#fast-property-access
>
> * * *
>
> Alright, that’s it for now. Can’t wait for your feedback!
>
> Best
> Jan


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