On Mar 4, 2012, at 18:48 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> 
> On Mar 4, 2012, at 18:45 , Bob Dionne wrote:
> 
>> 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 see ~10% faster than where 1.1.1 was for small docs and ~30% for large docs.

I got curious whether there was a drop-off (or up, I guess) point for the 
performance improvement between doc size and %-improved.

I re-ran the tests for 300, 500 & 700 byte docs respectively and the numbers 
(updated in the spreadsheet) suggest a ~5% improvement on each iteration.

So, looks linear, no sweet spot.

Moving on.

Cheers
Jan
-- 

> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> +1
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to