On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:36, Robert Dionne > <dio...@dionne-associates.com> wrote: >> This is interesting work, I notice some substantial changes to couch_btree, >> a new query_modify_raw, etc.. >> >> I'm wondering though if we'd be better off to base these changes on the re >> factored version of couch_btree that davisp has[1]. I haven't looked at it >> too closely or tested with it but if I recall the goal was first to achieve >> a more readable version with identical semantics so that we could then move >> forward with improvements. >> >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/davisp/couchdb/commit/37c1c9b4b90f6c0f3c22b75dfb2ae55c8b708ab1 >> >> > > I think the only thing holding that back was a good benchmarking. > Can we throw these new benchmarks at that branch? >
The concerns expressed last time were due to the switch to using the cmp_keys function. I think it was Randall that had the idea to rewrite the get_node write_node functions to do something in ets to try and focus in on testing just the btree changes. I'd also note that I haven't pulled in the recent changes from trunk that include data sizes and compression into the new branch, so it'll need a bit of work there as well.
