On Mar 4, 2012, at 13:03 , Bob Dionne wrote: > Great Jan, so this confirms my back of the envelope test using Bob's script > and Filipe's results. The patch is definitely helpful. > > I was wondering why no one had looked at test/bench, perhaps this more > rigorous approach could provide the basis for a comprehensive performance tool
Good call! I'd really like that our current efforts morph into a situation where we can `make perf` and get a bunch of good results to compare to other builds' `make perf`. Down the road, though, I think we need to write Erlang tools to do that, so Windows users can run them without too much trouble. (we could also bundle whatever scripting environment or C-based binaries with the builds, but since we already ship Erlang, we might as well use it :) Cheers Jan -- > > On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I made another run with a bit of a different scenario. >> >> >> # The Scenario >> >> I used a modified benchbulk.sh for inserting data (because it is an order of >> magnitude faster than the other methods we had). I added a command line >> parameter to specify the size of a single document in bytes (this was >> previously hardcoded in the script). Note that this script creates docs in a >> btree-friendly incrementing ID way. >> >> I added a new script benchview.sh which is basically the lower part of >> Robert Newson's script. It creates a single view and queries it, measuring >> execution time of curl. >> >> And a third matrix.sh (yay) that would run, on my system, different >> configurations. >> >> See https://gist.github.com/1971611 for the scripts. >> >> I ran ./benchbulk $size && ./benchview.sh for the following combinations, >> all on Mac OS X 10.7.3, Erlang R15B, Spidermonkey 1.8.5: >> >> - Doc sizes 10, 100, 1000 bytes >> - CouchDB 1.1.1, 1.2.x (as of last night), 1.2.x-filipe (as of last night + >> Filipe's patch from earlier in the thread) >> - On an SSD and on a 5400rpm internal drive. >> >> I ran each individual test three times and took the average to compare >> numbers. The full report (see below) includes each individual run's numbers) >> >> (The gist includes the raw output data from matrix.sh for the 5400rpm run, >> for the SSDs, I don't have the original numbers anymore. I'm happy to re-run >> this, if you want that data as well.) >> >> # The Numbers >> >> See >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhESVUYnc_sQdDJ1Ry1KMTQ5enBDY0s1dHk2UVEzMHc >> for the full data set. It'd be great to get a second pair of eyes to make >> sure I didn't make any mistakes. >> >> See the "Grouped Data" sheet for comparisons. >> >> tl;dr: 1.2.x is about 30% slower and 1.2.x-filipe is about 30% faster than >> 1.1.1 in the scenario above. >> >> >> # Conclusion >> >> +1 to include Filipe's patch into 1.2.x. >> >> >> >> I'd love any feedback on methods, calculations and whatnot :) >> >> Also, I can run more variations, if you like, other Erlang or SpiderMokney >> versions e.g., just let me know. >> >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> On Feb 28, 2012, at 14:17 , Jason Smith wrote: >> >>> Forgive the clean new thread. Hopefully it will not remain so. >>> >>> If you can, would you please clone https://github.com/jhs/slow_couchdb >>> >>> And build whatever Erlangs and CouchDB checkouts you see fit, and run >>> the test. For example: >>> >>> docs=500000 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl >>> >>> That should run the test and, God willing, upload the results to a >>> couch in the cloud. We should be able to use that information to >>> identify who you are, whether you are on SSD, what Erlang and Couch >>> build, and how fast it ran. Modulo bugs. >> >
