From user-return-14315-apmail-couchdb-user-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Tue Dec 21 00:13:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90525 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2010 00:13:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 21 Dec 2010 00:13:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 93660 invoked by uid 500); 21 Dec 2010 00:13:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 93616 invoked by uid 500); 21 Dec 2010 00:13:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 93608 invoked by uid 99); 21 Dec 2010 00:13:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:13:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.52] (HELO mail-vw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.212.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:13:47 +0000 Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so1534857vws.11 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:13:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Zhj3NbYnlsox4G9MlR89Lfi8yGLCu+ChtNatX9u1/H0=; b=sYh2O/Qp1MVJu7LGfN/h0crvI+wub+krVyg1SAenLdY6sFVBs1SC40G9oeJ5PUF022 OeGzBafSp36WqPQQMgVWsSlnSTwsCGuys9UEnLXz6oZP/yXx/KWcYqJ7Izg/6tcCw7qM OtgDqwyb4qTNeVIVvhFlzaw8VMiHn/wKIvGHc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=HTM4eghVrcARTp+pa6ETVkZSke4mE4ZiE7qeB5Are57PdOE7PsPs9C0ei0O1HbSUKt 5rFPQHsGDzBUE5UrF9xb9J8NdMG9qgP9o93ppRCuw3zSuKu3NUEVaxkJlc99SiXiZ5CE 3pqe3gAt/Y9HRKMa5SNFyeVDrWNq/NA5o0A9E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.175.130 with SMTP id ba2mr1509562vcb.24.1292890406261; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:13:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: jchris@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.200.12 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:13:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <06808805-9086-4677-8B2D-C12B63CFE620@gmail.com> <1405CBE3-CD49-4C70-B64C-145E198B99B0@apache.org> <76CBEBC6-1B90-46E4-9A83-CD5C3A149D31@apache.org> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:13:26 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EZa5xJw_cylgW0GxbZbFEtyUFQk Message-ID: Subject: Re: Comparison of MongoDB & CouchDB: MongoDB seems better on insert From: Chris Anderson To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Brian Mitchell wrote: [snip] > > You did all I can ask for in the sense of constructive response... though= I do think the CouchDB community seems shy on providing people with simple= ranges of data to help them decide to invest time into more refined measur= ement. > > The truth is that couchdb does have it's strengths that don't tend to sho= w well in many cases. On the other hand, some applications do need performa= nce numbers that don't easily come from a standard couched setup. Knowing t= his before diving into dangerous comparisons will help avoid the awkwardnes= s as people try to measure things that don't really represent the prioritie= s of a project well. Right now you have to dig deeper than most people will= ever look to find these numbers. They are hidden whether that is done inte= ntionally or not. > > I'd think that it'd be in the community's favor to be as clear as possibl= e with what kind of ballpark the DB is in. People who miss out on the great= parts of CouchDB because they only focus on speed (so they chose something= else) are probably not the prime targets of this project anyway. If people= here disagree, then some serious work needs to be done on improving these = numbers (IMO, there is a lot of speed to gain). > I think the performance question is a good one. It's hard to answer because we've seen so many different performance #s depending on workload. As far as rough #s, this bash script inserts about 2500 documents a second into CouchDB on my MacBook Air. https://github.com/apache/couchdb/blob/trunk/test/bench/benchbulk.sh Generally the question that tends to matter is: Can view generation keep up with inserts, on average? Once the index is built, responses to it are fast, so the index build time matters. On desktop-class hardware, I tend to expect between 500-1000 documents per second can be processed (for documents about as complex and large as a tweet). Of course this # will vary widely depending on hardware and the # of keys you emit. BigCouch also makes partitioning this view generation load easier, so that more of the mapping can be done in parallel. Chris > Brian. > > --=20 Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io