Tim's work is certainly the catalyst for my excitement about the potential here for Couch.
As Paul pointed out, the correct discussion to have at this point is really about "do we support a binary format for responses" and if so "which one"? That discussion could go on for an eternity with everyone voting for their favorite (protobuff, smile, messagepack, etc.). The only reason I bring up the "disk store format" discussion into this conversion is to offer a hat-tip to a future where a binary response format selected now may dovetail nicely with alternative binary disk formats, enabling the stream-directly-from-disk scenario. If we were to hypothetically remove the possibility of the on-disk format ever changing, then I suppose the decision of binary response format just becomes an issue of "Which one is fast and easy to generate?". -R On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Ladislav Thon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That said, the ubjson spec is starting to look reasonable and capable > > to be an alternative content-type produced by CouchDB. If someone were > > to write a patch I'd review it quite enthusiastically. > > > Just FYI, there's an experimental support for MessagePack by Tim Anglade: > https://github.com/timanglade/couchdb/commits/msgpack I thought it might > be > interesting in this debate... Tim says it improves performance quite a bit: > http://blog.cloudant.com/optimizing-couchdb-calls-by-99-percent/ (Tim, if > you're reading this, thank's for the excellent talk!) > > LT >
