couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Erlang vs JavaScript
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:21 GMT
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jens Alfke <jens@couchbase.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Erlang server bypassed stdio interface communication and addtional
>> JSON decode/encode roundtrip, so it is faster than JS at some point.
>
> Yeah — the ironic thing is that state-of-the-art JS runtimes are probably faster than
Erlang* these days, but JS views are still going to be slower because (a) they run in a separate
process, and (b) the docs have to be translated from Erlang terms into JS objects. My experience
from working inter-language bridges is that parameter marshaling is generally a performance
killer.

I believe that views can be processed in parallel to speed up
indexing, but this will be trade-off between speed and overall server
performance (easy to hit OOM state with big docs). Also, this will
requires communication protocol changing and Samuel's already made a
proposal about:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1743
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JtfvCpNB9pRQyLhS5KkkEdJ-ghSCv89xnw5HDMTCsp8/edit

But I agree with your last sentence. However, it's also tradeoff
between flexibility and performance (;

> * Not intending to start a language-performance flame war! But Erlang’s interpreter
is quite primitive by today’s standards: it doesn’t even have a JIT.

Offtopic joke: even PHP has JIT and dies after user request processing
for years before Erlang (:

--
,,,^..^,,,

Mime
View raw message