couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zachary Zolton <zachary.zol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Couch and Varnish
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:11:14 GMT
That makes sense: if every request to the caching proxy checks the
etag against CouchDB via a HEAD request—and CouchDB currently does
just as much work for a HEAD as it would for a GET—you're not going to
see an improvement.

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
> I should be more clear. If you have a custom caching policy whereby
> the proxy will only check the ETag against the authority (Couch) once
> per (hour, day, whatever) then you'll get a speedup. But if your proxy
> performs a HEAD request for every incoming request you will not see
> much performance gain.
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:06, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I mentioned on another thread, etags only save you bandwidth as
>> right now Couch performs the GET request and then discards the body.
>> I'll open a JIRA ticket for this if it's not there already. It'd be
>> nice if the "Couch is HTTP and can leverage existing caches and tools"
>> talking point truly included significant gains from etag caching.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 08:17, Zachary Zolton <zachary.zolton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Drat! If only Varnish supported Etags...
>>>
>>> If you don't wanna use time-based expiry, you could probably craft a
>>> custom-built solution where you watch the _changes feed and explicitly
>>> purge URLs using a tool such as Thinner:
>>>
>>> http://propublica.github.com/thinner/
>>>
>>> Of course, you'd be stuck with manually tracking the types of URLs to
>>> purged, so I haven't been too eager to try it out yet...
>>>
>>> —Zach
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Karel, the last time I looked into this I came to the same conclusions
as you have here.  Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Karel Minařík wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to ask if anyone has some experience to share regarding accelerating
Couch with Varnish. I think lots of us are doing it, but can't find too much info around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Originally, I thought it would be possible to use ETags with some proper
Varnish configuration (eg. "accumulate" concurrent requests and pass only one to the backend,
etc), but that seems not to be possible, since Varnish does not pass ETags to the backend
[http://lists.varnish-cache.org/pipermail/varnish-misc/2010-November/004997.html].
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it now, the only way how to cache Couch's response would
be with time-based caching, and either using the cached response until it auto-expires, or
expire the cached response via PURGE commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, it would be possible and technically trivial to send purge
requests via the _changes feed or via the "update_notification" mechanism. As I see it, the
tricky part would be to know which objects to purge, based on individual document changes.
Because not only single documents, but also aggregated view results or fulltext queries would
get cached. Of course, "there are two hard thing in computer science ...".
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone put any thoughts/work into this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Karel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message