Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ykhambia@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=v7ae4kSxRpCgMy7/9govZnM6v+oVHzT8Na0CP7SeazjGwfPIKljr5npQaoCfbyuadT
         OtMfHP1IVsgzrkub6FKN32+NRRwJLV8B0xo8teV986x6kI+YOqNzdU4227MM/uWLysdV
         Ub3MIgi/MrXQCGu2G+cS7Utx4zqG8luD8yjNo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikFiCgDY0PeyUV4h0G8_t4kbT3nCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikab3+j12W8eoPX1QBXR7LWe-KmBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTin6uAhN3Bc6Z6CaLKcXr=UPKaHsxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=eGwv+6A16S9AeNt0MvgZQ9fJoww@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikFiCgDY0PeyUV4h0G8_t4kbT3nCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:34:49 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTike32xvM1FZPqu4kzRtAbjzkHadrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: view index generation for single document and bulk documents
From: Yogesh Khambia <ykhambia@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d80995ce03604a5effe15

--0022152d80995ce03604a5effe15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Marcello,

Thanks for information.
In fact the information about the data being updated to the last record is
required, with the condition that end user should not have a notifiable
waiting ime (not more than 20 sec).
For testing, I did measurements with CouchDB-1.0.1 and CouchDB-1.1.0 for the
clean installation database on Ubuntu machine(single core) with only CouchDB
running on the machine. A writer from my another machine writes documents to
the database.
I observed a significant difference between the writing speed as follows:


CouchDB-1.0.1

CouchDB-1.1.0

Writing speed

5 Docs/sec

20-25 docs/sec

I am sticking with CouchDB-1.0.1 for my project now as I am using it for
quite sometime and it is stable. For Windows it crashed (we know that
Windows is not officially supported platform). so for now, I am not using
'stale=update_after'.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Marcello Nuccio
<marcello.nuccio@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/6/16 Yogesh Khambia <ykhambia@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Marcello,
> >
> > Thanks for the tip.
> > I will be testing with CouchDB-1.1 soon.
> > One point I want to add:
> > In my case as the database is being updated quite often, the user is
> > interested in the view on the latest data available at any time. Querying
> > the view with 'stale=update_after' parameter will result in stalling the
> > view and then rebuilding the view index, therefore, it will not give the
> > view on the latest data.
>
> It will give the view on the latest indexed data and it will ensure
> that the index is kept updated. It's a trade-off. What is the most
> important for your users: fast response time or information updated to
> the last second?
>
> Marcello
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Marcello Nuccio
> > <marcello.nuccio@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Yogesh,
> >> I cannot answer your questions, but I think you should repeat your
> >> tests with CouchDB-1.1 and querying the view with `stale=update_after`
> >> parameter.
> >>
> >> Read
> >>
> http://docs.couchbase.org/couchdb-release-1.1/index.html#coudhdb-release-1.1-updateafter
> >> for more information.
> >>
> >> Bye,
> >>  Marcello
> >>
> >> 2011/6/16 Yogesh Khambia <ykhambia@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Currently, I am doing performance tests with database in CouchDB
> 1.0.1,
> >> > where a script is continuously writing single documents to the CouchDB
> >> > database.
> >> > I had the issue of the user being penalized for reading the view in
> >> CouchDB
> >> > database, by updating the view indexes.To improve on the latency for
> the
> >> > view index generation, I wrote a function which generates the view
> >> indexes
> >> > for each new update made to the database.
> >> > The latency for view index creation has been improved. However, I read
> >> from
> >> > the FAQ on the CouchDB wiki that "The reason not to integrate each doc
> as
> >> it
> >> > comes in is that it is horribly inefficient and CouchDB is designed to
> do
> >> > view index updates very fast, so batching is a good idea."
> >> > It will be really helpful if somebody can answer me on following:
> >> >
> >> > - If  view index generation for each new single document insert is not
> a
> >> > good approach?
> >> >
> >> > - How does the single document insert and bulk document insert affect
> the
> >> > CouchDB view generation, where:
> >> >
> >> >   1.  a daemon script updates view index for each new document insert.
> >> >   2.  a daemon script updates view index for bulk document
> >> >
> >> > Thank you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best Regards,
> >> > Yogesh Khambia
> >> > Postgraduate Design Engineer
> >> > Mobile: +31 626 217 381
> >> > Email: y.khambia@tue.nl
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Yogesh Khambia
> > Postgraduate Design Engineer
> > Mobile: +31 626 217 381
> > Email: y.khambia@tue.nl
> >
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Yogesh Khambia
Postgraduate Design Engineer
Mobile: +31 626 217 381
Email: y.khambia@tue.nl

--0022152d80995ce03604a5effe15--