[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14121430#comment-14121430
]
Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2310:
-------------------------------------------
> I notice the json document GET does send the attachment stubs.
As for "Accept: application/json" request against doc with open_revs parameter
they will be only sent if you explicitly ask for that (via additional query
param attachents=true). As for "Accept: multipart/*" they will be always
returned back.
I would suggest to :
1) Let /db/_bulk_docs accept multipart requests
2) Let the new endpoint (/db/_bulk_revs) return multipart response as like as
/db/docid?open_revs=[...] does
So the replication turns into the easy walk: the client have to transparently
stream response from _bulk_revs as the request body for _bulk_docs without
buffering anything in memory. May be only tracking the latest received doc from
_bulk_revs to easily recover replication on connection failure. Server in case
of loosing connection with the client may flush received data to db and wait
for the recover. Also this way could be easily upgraded for using modern
streaming protocols like websockets etc.
Currently, replcation client have to maintain local buffer of received docs and
flush them when the stack limit get reached.
> Add a bulk API for revs & open_revs
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2310
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2310
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: HTTP Interface
> Reporter: Nolan Lawson
>
> CouchDB replication is too slow.
> And what makes it so slow is that it's just so unnecessarily chatty. During
> replication, you have to do a separate GET for each individual document, in
> order to get the full {{_revisions}} object for that document (using the
> {{revs}} and {{open_revs}} parameters – refer to [the TouchDB
> writeup|https://github.com/couchbaselabs/TouchDB-iOS/wiki/Replication-Algorithm]
> or [Benoit's writeup|http://dataprotocols.org/couchdb-replication/] if you
> need a refresher).
> So for example, let's say you've got a database full of 10,000 documents, and
> you replicate using a batch size of 500 (batch sizes are configurable in
> PouchDB). The conversation for a single batch basically looks like this:
> {code}
> - REPLICATOR: gimme 500 changes since seq X (1 GET request)
> - SOURCE: okay
> - REPLICATOR: gimme the _revs_diff for these 500 docs/_revs (1 POST request)
> - SOURCE: okay
> - repeat 500 times:
> - REPLICATOR: gimme the _revisions for doc n with _revs [...] (1 GET
> request)
> - SOURCE: okay
> - REPLICATOR: here's a _bulk_docs with 500 documents (1 POST request)
> - TARGET: okay
> {code}
> See the problem here? That 500-loop, where we have to do a GET for each one
> of 500 documents, is a lot of unnecessary back-and-forth, considering that
> the replicator already knows what it needs before the loop starts. You can
> parallelize, but if you assume a browser (e.g. for PouchDB), most browsers
> only let you do ~8 simultaneous requests at once. Plus, there's latency and
> HTTP headers to consider. So overall, it's not cool.
> So why do we even need to do the separate requests? Shouldn't {{_all_docs}}
> be good enough? Turns out it's not, because we need this special
> {{_revisions}} object.
> For example, consider a document {{'foo'}} with 10 revisions. You may compact
> the database, in which case revisions {{1-x}} through {{9-x}} are no longer
> retrievable. However, if you query using {{revs}} and {{open_revs}}, those
> rev IDs are still available:
> {code}
> $ curl 'http://nolan.iriscouch.com/test/foo?revs=true&open_revs=all'
> {
> "_id": "foo",
> "_rev": "10-c78e199ad5e996b240c9d6482907088e",
> "_revisions": {
> "start": 10,
> "ids": [
> "c78e199ad5e996b240c9d6482907088e",
> "f560283f1968a05046f0c38e468006bb",
> "0091198554171c632c27c8342ddec5af",
> "e0a023e2ea59db73f812ad773ea08b17",
> "65d7f8b8206a244035edd9f252f206ad",
> "069d1432a003c58bdd23f01ff80b718f",
> "d21f26bb604b7fe9eba03ce4562cf37b",
> "31d380f99a6e54875855e1c24469622d",
> "3b4791360024426eadafe31542a2c34b",
> "967a00dff5e02add41819138abb3284d"
> ]
> }
> }
> {code}
> And in the replication algorithm, _this full \_revisions object is required_
> at the point when you copy the document from one database to another, which
> is accomplished with a POST to {{_bulk_docs}} using {{new_edits=false}}. If
> you don't have the full {{_revisions}} object, CouchDB accepts the new
> revision, but considers it to be a conflict. (The exception is with
> generation-1 documents, since they have no history, so as it says in the
> TouchDB writeup, you can safely just use {{_all_docs}} as an optimization for
> such documents.)
> And unfortunately, this {{_revision}} object is only available from the {{GET
> /:dbid/:docid}} endpoint. Trust me; I've tried the other APIs. You can't get
> it anywhere else.
> This is a huge problem, especially in PouchDB where we often have to deal
> with CORS, meaning the number of HTTP requests is doubled. So for those 500
> GETs, it's an extra 500 OPTIONs, which is just unacceptable.
> Replication does not have to be slow. While we were experimenting with ways
> of fetching documents in bulk, we tried a technique that just relied on using
> {{_changes}} with {{include_docs=true}}
> ([|\#2472|https://github.com/pouchdb/pouchdb/pull/2472]). This pushed
> conflicts into the target database, but on the upside, you can sync ~95k
> documents from npm's skimdb repository to the browser in less than 20
> minutes! (See [npm-browser.com|http://npm-browser.com] for a demo.)
> What an amazing story we could tell about the beauty of CouchDB replication,
> if only this trick actually worked!
> My proposal is a simple one: just add the {{revs}} and {{open_revs}} options
> to {{_all_docs}}. Presumably this would be aligned with {{keys}}, so similar
> to how {{keys}} takes an array of docIds, {{open_revs}} would take an array
> of array of revisions. {{revs}} would just be a boolean.
> This only gets hairy in the case of deleted documents. In this example,
> {{bar}} is deleted but {{foo}} is not:
> {code}
> curl -g
> 'http://nolan.iriscouch.com/test/_all_docs?keys=["bar","foo"]&include_docs=true'
> {"total_rows":1,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"bar","key":"bar","value":{"rev":"2-eec205a9d413992850a6e32678485900","deleted":true},"doc":null},
> {"id":"foo","key":"foo","value":{"rev":"10-c78e199ad5e996b240c9d6482907088e"},"doc":{"_id":"foo","_rev":"10-c78e199ad5e996b240c9d6482907088e"}}
> ]}
> {code}
> The cleanest would be to attach the {{_revisions}} object to the {{doc}}, but
> if you use {{keys}}, then the deleted documents are returned with {{doc:
> null}}, even if you specify {{include_docs=true}}. One workaround would be to
> simply add a {{revisions}} object to the {{value}}.
> If all of this would be too difficult to implement under the hood in CouchDB,
> I'd also be happy to get the {{_revisions}} back in {{_changes}},
> {{_revs_diff}}, or even in a separate endpoint. I don't care, as long as
> there is some bulk API where I can get multiple {{_revisions}} for multiple
> documents at once.
> On the PouchDB end of things, we would really like to push forward on this.
> I'm happy to implement a Node.js proxy to stand in front of
> CouchDB/Cloudant/CSG and add this new API, plus adding it directly to PouchDB
> Server. I can invent whatever API I want, but the main thing is that I would
> like this API to be something that all the major players can agree upon
> (Apache, Cloudant, Couchbase) so that eventually the proxy is no longer
> necessary.
> Thanks for reading the WoT. Looking forward to a faster CouchDB replication
> protocol, since it's the thing that ties us all together and makes this crazy
> experiment worthwhile.
> Background: [this|https://github.com/pouchdb/pouchdb/issues/2686] and
> [this|https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/340cb898f8ed9f3db8a0].
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
