Science!
On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 18:42, Russell Branca wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 27, 2013, at 13:22 , Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Very little difference in different implementations (because stdio is > > the > > > > bottleneck) > > > > > > > > > Why stdio is a bottleneck? I'm interesting underlay reasons. > > > > It is actually not the the stdio, but the serialisation form erlang-terms > > to JSON to JS Objects to JSON to erlang terms. > > > > Cheers > > Jan > > -- > > > > Yeah serialization overhead is the main reason I wanted to do "end to end" > performance tests, as I truly am curious whether native view engines are > strictly faster, or faster for docs once they reach a certain size or > something else entirely. > > My prediction is that bulk processing of views (whenever that gets added) > will be an order of magnitude faster than the current system and make most > of these comparison benchmarks irrelevant, but we should at least get that > data together first. > > > -Russell > > > > > > > > > > As for my experience, the protocol design doesn't allows view and > > > query servers works faster as they can. For example, we have 50 ddocs > > > with validate functions. For each document save there would be > > > executed from 100 commands (50 resets + 50 ddoc validate_doc_update > > > calls) till 150 commands (+ddocs caches), while it's possible to > > > process them in bulk mode. > > > > > > -- > > > ,,,^..^,,, > > > > > > > > > >
