yes, I was surprised by the 30% claim as my numbers showed it only getting back to where we were with 1.1.x
I think Bob's suggestion to get to the root code change that caused this regression is important as it will help us assess all the other cases this testing hasn't even touched yet On Mar 3, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Bob Dionne wrote: > I ran some tests, using Bob's latest script. The first versus the second > clearly show the regression. The third is the 1.2.x with the patch > to couch_os_process reverted and it seems to have no impact. The last has > Filipe's latest patch to couch_view_updater discussed in the > other thread and it brings the performance back to the 1.1.x level. > > I'd say that patch is a +1 > > 1.2.x > real 3m3.093s > user 0m0.028s > sys 0m0.008s > ================== > 1.1.x > real 2m16.609s > user 0m0.026s > sys 0m0.007s > ================= > 1.2.x with patch to couch_os_process reverted > real 3m7.012s > user 0m0.029s > sys 0m0.008s > ================= > 1.2.x with Filipe's katest patch to couch_view_updater > real 2m11.038s > user 0m0.028s > sys 0m0.007s > On Feb 28, 2012, at 8:17 AM, 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. >
