Ah, I've confused external with update_notification. You can contact couchdb-lucene on its own port which handles concurrent calls but, yes, calls via an external are serialized (which sucks). B. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Nils Breunese wrote: > We ran into performance problems when we put a site that was pretty couchdb-lucene heavy into production. The query times in couchdb-lucene were fast, but we believe it was all those concurrent queries that killed performance, since they all had to go through this single externals pipe to couchdb-lucene. Using the _changes feed as couchdb-lucene's input sounds like a good idea, but then couchdb-lucene queries also need to be going directly to the couchdb-lucene instance, right? I believe it supports that now, but applications may need to be modified for this. Or is there a way that this could still go through the current _fti URL's (without adding some mod_rewrite like magic). > > Nils. > ________________________________________ > Van: Robert Newson [robert.newson@gmail.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 27 juli 2010 23:41 > Aan: user@couchdb.apache.org > Onderwerp: Re: external handlers are not in sync with commits > > reading _changes instead of using the (deprecated?) externals feature > would avoid the problem? > > B. > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote: >> >> On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Norman Barker wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have written couchdb-clucene >>> (http://github.com/normanb/couchdb-clucene) and am doing a lot of >>> testing with heavy datasets where I am sending a bulk doc request with >>> 10 docs at a time, a couple of these every second for a couple of >>> minutes. >>> >>> Very quickly couchdb backs up and hogs the cpu since the database >>> commit and return doesn't wait for an external handler to do its job. >>> The model of fire and forget is fine and I like it, very similar to >>> JMS, however since the external process is a singleton it has to be >>> very quick to keep up with load or the system slowly backs up. >>> >>> Is there a way to either define a pool of externals, or to change the >>> default behaviour from fire and forget? >>> >> >> Yes, but involves feature development for CouchDB. Essentially we need the externals protocol to be non-blocking. There is a thread on dev@ that touches on this. I'm not sure who wants to own making the patch, but the technical requirements are pretty well known. >> >> Thank you for working on something so awesome! >> >> Chris >> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Norman >> >> > > De informatie vervat in deze  e-mail en meegezonden bijlagen is uitsluitend bedoeld voor gebruik door de geadresseerde en kan vertrouwelijke informatie bevatten. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding en/of verstrekking van deze informatie aan derden is voorbehouden aan geadresseerde. De VPRO staat niet in voor de juiste en volledige overbrenging van de inhoud van een verzonden e-mail, noch voor tijdige ontvangst daarvan. >