couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sebastian Negomireanu" <sebastian.negomire...@justdesign.ro>
Subject RE: Performance issue
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:37:43 GMT
After monitoring with Wireshark, it seems that there aren't any other
operations happening at the same time.

I've attached the whole HTTP conversation.

As you can see from the http dump, I check if the test database exists, drop
it, recreate it, add two views to it and then add a document. This whole
process takes 7 seconds to complete.


Best regards,
Sebastian Negomireanu | CTO / Managing Partner JustDesign Sibiu, Romania
+40-726-181186 | +40-788-757462
sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro

SC JustDesign SRL | Str. Dorului 20, 550352, Sibiu, Romania
+40-269-210008 | office@justdesign.ro | www.justdesign.ro 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Newson [mailto:robert.newson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:15 PM
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance issue

One thing that snagged me one time was a client that sent "Expect:
Continue" header. There was a time when couchdb didn't recognize this
case-insensitively. For me, this caused a two second delay to all
requests.

B.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Sebastian Negomireanu
<sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro> wrote:
> I am connecting to the database from my .NET application (which uses Divan
> as a library). But I've put it through a profiler and I get the large
delay
> when waiting for the response from the database. The time needed to run
the
> application itself (prepare the JSON message, parse the response etc.) is
> minimal compared to the time it waits for the request. Actually sending
the
> request takes less than 5ms.
>
> Anyway, I'll monitor everything with wireshark a bit later today and come
> back with the results. Maybe, as Roger pointed out, my infrastructure is
the
> cause for this.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Sebastian Negomireanu | CTO / Managing Partner JustDesign Sibiu, Romania
> +40-726-181186 | +40-788-757462
> sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro
>
> SC JustDesign SRL | Str. Dorului 20, 550352, Sibiu, Romania
> +40-269-210008 | office@justdesign.ro | www.justdesign.ro
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Newson [mailto:robert.newson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Performance issue
>
> What HTTP client are you using?
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Sebastian Negomireanu
> <sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro> wrote:
>> Ok I will try that and come back with results.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sebastian Negomireanu | CTO / Managing Partner JustDesign Sibiu, Romania
>> +40-726-181186 | +40-788-757462
>> sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro
>>
>> SC JustDesign SRL | Str. Dorului 20, 550352, Sibiu, Romania
>> +40-269-210008 | office@justdesign.ro | www.justdesign.ro
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger Binns [mailto:rogerb@rogerbinns.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:59 AM
>> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Performance issue
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Sebastian Negomireanu wrote:
>>> In both scenarios, I get response times around 500ms
>>
>> In these kind of situations I am a big fan of using Wireshark to see
> exactly
>> what the response time is.  There could be all sorts of funky stuff going
> on
>> such as proxy servers, DNS lookups, IPv6 failing and then going to IPv4
> and
>> who knows what else that may be major contributions to the time as
> observed
>> by the client side code.
>>
>> Roger
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkrv/sgACgkQmOOfHg372QTcGQCdF0U0esBf+ODH54UESA1onxr2
>> i8AAn3beEdWJr0GbJXP1Z0hFirMWqyPO
>> =mUU0
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message