Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39697 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2009 09:03:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2009 09:03:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 64065 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2009 09:03:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 64034 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2009 09:03:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 64023 invoked by uid 99); 20 Mar 2009 09:03:44 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:03:44 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of neonux@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.168] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:03:37 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1045031wfa.29 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:03:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ubLHuV9DgevM0jaX23SGFPn2qkAuWp3b82munYtQwF0=; b=uMPrp8Hh8eUmluzBX/yzg6v+2FQ46WkjRwxAhmLHdiFMczh63mL8ZYWbVFCYDvMCsJ WQS+zT285dpa6TLv0wuO8WVw0HsLF71mRIgpLHaE7f6FG1eMFdaV+xtQH4CHCjj+WJW7 p8BEtjFFpCOeRIiVaos7PaM14VxQuyaAxLbAs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=tMhSMWGvX3nZaDsr5jQN9w7rI9I1wDoB6TnCeTwYpe8nvmNHqN5l/IwhXj0LUcSSan IftLmV83EhwcRR2rcV1h1x/mT3L3EfBzYmwBzmMnhlifWQUKbdtbpzpXLupHPTFjDDn/ Wy3GVK6Xrqt8sVq3oLYA4E2tCmt/Z6BTm+d2A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: neonux@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.221.11 with SMTP id t11mr1384701wfg.238.1237539797508; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:03:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <41139fcb0903192334n6028e604v24d4d31cae735191@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:03:17 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1fc9d40637a6c6ef Message-ID: Subject: Re: using mutliple cores for view computation From: Cedric Vivier To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd1471006acac046589304d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd1471006acac046589304d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > A slight clarification, JS itself is multi-threaded. Couchjs is just > not implemented as a threaded view server. I've contemplated giving > view servers the ability to exectute multiple jobs simultaneously but > there are a couple of things that make it not a priority. I also think keeping view servers as simple as possible makes sense. Otoh is it possible to make CouchDb evenly distribute jobs to several spawned couchjs view server instances? (and the OS scheduler would make sure that the different view server processes ends up running on different cores I guess... though of course the 'bottleneck' might be the I/O anyways) Regards, --000e0cd1471006acac046589304d--