Whoops, i read my graph wrong. We're actually slower for really small docs.
The thing about the small doc test is that the docs are actually so small that they aren't realistic. I ran the test again with +A 4 added to 0.11 and it was about twice as bad. Again tho, these docs are absurdly small so I think that when the documents size increases the performance of +A balances out. Also, if you had load on more than one DB +A is going to dramatically improve the performance. -Mikeal On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Mikeal Rogers <[email protected]>wrote: > And this is the same test but with much smaller documents: > > > http://mikeal.couchone.com/graphs/_design/app/_show/compareWriteReadTest/e69057a29bd6e4ac4ae0115fac0193c9 > > The coolest part is that it looks like our read performance has stabilized > quite a bit. > > -Mikeal > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Awesome! I think most of this is due to Adam and Randall. Nice work guys >> :) >> >> -Damien >> >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: >> >> > I don't know what we did, but in my tests the write performance on trunk >> is >> > about 3x faster than 0.11 >> > >> > >> http://mikeal.couchone.com/graphs/_design/app/_show/compareWriteReadTest/e69057a29bd6e4ac4ae0115fac018487 >> > >> > The left vertical column is the average response time in ms and the >> bottom >> > horizontal line is the duration in seconds. >> > >> > This is comparing 50 writers and 200 readers using large document. I'm >> also >> > going to run the test with small documents to see how big the difference >> is. >> > Both are running with delayed_commits = false ; >> > >> > -Mikeal >> >> >
