[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1092?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13007963#comment-13007963
]
Filipe Manana commented on COUCHDB-1092:
----------------------------------------
> I'm sure the bit twiddling will work for now but what happens when people
> create docs directly in Erlang? There's nothing that stops > people from
> shoving random binaries into a #doc{} and then saving those. This is what I
> mean by "not correct".
Do we already support an official internal Erlang API, so that users can
directly do that?
Even for those who do it, because there's probably someone out there doing it,
I'm not breaking our couch_db:update_doc and couch_db:update_docs functions.
Before they send a doc to the updater, they check if the body is in EJSON, if
it is, they convert it into a JSON binary.
But you know what? Even in the current situation (trunk), the caller can give
EJSON that doesn't match an EJSON object. For these cases we blindly write to
the file. Here's an example done in an interactive shell:
http://friendpaste.com/3h2IgFF1RXvwxpDGiMDOdS
The check and conversion, if necessary, that I spoke about is done here:
https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/src/couchdb/couch_db.erl#L646
and here
https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/src/couchdb/couch_db.erl#L676
But you known, even your JSON splice is only validating on a read operation,
not before a write. So in the end, we get exactly the same issue - the
branch/patch is not adding this issue when writing a document - it's something
we unfortunately already have.
> The SQL injection comment is that you're relying on the assumption that you
> always have a valid JSON object with no flanking > whitespace and no internal
> whitespace if its not empty. What happens for things like <<"{ }">> or
> <<"{adfasf}">>? Nothing good.
The case for <<"{}">> is considered by couch_doc:doc_to_json/2. For the
<<"adfast">>, we can only reach there when using the internal APIs directly,
see the comment above.
Anyway, whenever you have your jsonsplice module fixed, let me known so that I
rerun the tests and see if it has a significant impact or not.
> Storing documents bodies as raw JSON binaries instead of serialized JSON terms
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-1092
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1092
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Database Core
> Reporter: Filipe Manana
> Assignee: Filipe Manana
>
> Currently we store documents as Erlang serialized (via the term_to_binary/1
> BIF) EJSON.
> The proposed patch changes the database file format so that instead of
> storing serialized
> EJSON document bodies, it stores raw JSON binaries.
> The github branch is at:
> https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/tree/raw_json_docs
> Advantages:
> * what we write to disk is much smaller - a raw JSON binary can easily get up
> to 50% smaller
> (at least according to the tests I did)
> * when serving documents to a client we no longer need to JSON encode the
> document body
> read from the disk - this applies to individual document requests, view
> queries with
> ?include_docs=true, pull and push replications, and possibly other use
> cases.
> We just grab its body and prepend the _id, _rev and all the necessary
> metadata fields
> (this is via simple Erlang binary operations)
> * we avoid the EJSON term copying between request handlers and the db updater
> processes,
> between the work queues and the view updater process, between replicator
> processes, etc
> * before sending a document to the JavaScript view server, we no longer need
> to convert it
> from EJSON to JSON
> The changes done to the document write workflow are minimalist - after JSON
> decoding the
> document's JSON into EJSON and removing the metadata top level fields (_id,
> _rev, etc), it
> JSON encodes the resulting EJSON body into a binary - this consumes CPU of
> course but it
> brings 2 advantages:
> 1) we avoid the EJSON copy between the request process and the database
> updater process -
> for any realistic document size (4kb or more) this can be very expensive,
> specially
> when there are many nested structures (lists inside objects inside lists,
> etc)
> 2) before writing anything to the file, we do a term_to_binary([Len, Md5,
> TheThingToWrite])
> and then write the result to the file. A term_to_binary call with a binary
> as the input
> is very fast compared to a term_to_binary call with EJSON as input (or
> some other nested
> structure)
> I think both compensate the JSON encoding after the separation of meta data
> fields and non-meta data fields.
> The following relaximation graph, for documents with sizes of 4Kb, shows a
> significant
> performance increase both for writes and reads - especially reads.
> http://graphs.mikeal.couchone.com/#/graph/698bf36b6c64dbd19aa2bef63400b94f
> I've also made a few tests to see how much the improvement is when querying a
> view, for the
> first time, without ?stale=ok. The size difference of the databases (after
> compaction) is
> also very significant - this change can reduce the size at least 50% in
> common cases.
> The test databases were created in an instance built from that experimental
> branch.
> Then they were replicated into a CouchDB instance built from the current
> trunk.
> At the end both databases were compacted (to fairly compare their final
> sizes).
> The databases contain the following view:
> {
> "_id": "_design/test",
> "language": "javascript",
> "views": {
> "simple": {
> "map": "function(doc) { emit(doc.float1, doc.strings[1]); }"
> }
> }
> }
> ## Database with 500 000 docs of 2.5Kb each
> Document template is at:
> https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/doc_2_5k.json
> Sizes (branch vs trunk):
> $ du -m couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test.couch
> 1996 couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test.couch
> $ du -m couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test.couch
> 2693 couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test.couch
> Time, from a user's perpective, to build the view index from scratch:
> $ time curl
> http://localhost:5984/disk_json_test/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"0000076a-c1ae-4999-b508-c03f4d0620c5","key":null,"value":"wfxuF3N8XEK6"}
> ]}
> real 6m6.740s
> user 0m0.016s
> sys 0m0.008s
> $ time curl
> http://localhost:5985/disk_ejson_test/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"0000076a-c1ae-4999-b508-c03f4d0620c5","key":null,"value":"wfxuF3N8XEK6"}
> ]}
> real 15m41.439s
> user 0m0.012s
> sys 0m0.012s
> ## Database with 100 000 docs of 11Kb each
> Document template is at:
> https://github.com/fdmanana/couchdb/blob/raw_json_docs/doc_11k.json
> Sizes (branch vs trunk):
> $ du -m couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test_11kb.couch
> 1185 couchdb/tmp/lib/disk_json_test_11kb.couch
> $ du -m couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test_11kb.couch
> 2202 couchdb-trunk/tmp/lib/disk_ejson_test_11kb.couch
> Time, from a user's perpective, to build the view index from scratch:
> $ time curl
> http://localhost:5984/disk_json_test_11kb/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":100000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"00001511-831c-41ff-9753-02861bff73b3","key":null,"value":"2fQUbzRUax4A"}
> ]}
> real 4m19.306s
> user 0m0.008s
> sys 0m0.004s
> $ time curl
> http://localhost:5985/disk_ejson_test_11kb/_design/test/_view/simple?limit=1
> {"total_rows":100000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"00001511-831c-41ff-9753-02861bff73b3","key":null,"value":"2fQUbzRUax4A"}
> ]}
> real 18m46.051s
> user 0m0.008s
> sys 0m0.016s
> All in all, I haven't seen yet any disadvantage with this approach. Also, the
> code changes
> don't bring additional complexity. I say the performance and disk space gains
> it gives are
> very positive.
> This branch still needs to be polished in a few places. But I think it isn't
> far from getting mature.
> Other experiments that can be done are to store view values as raw JSON
> binaries as well (instead of EJSON)
> and optional compression of the stored JSON binaries (since it's pure text,
> the compression ratio is very high).
> However, I would prefer to do these other 2 suggestions in separate
> branches/patches - I haven't actually tested
> any of them yet, so maybe they not bring significant gains.
> Thoughts? :)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
