On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jens Alfke <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Paul Davis > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That's an intriguing datapoint because _all_docs?include_docs=true is > the same algorithmic complexity as issuing a larger number of GET > requests. That would suggest that something in the HTTP layer is > adding significant overhead to individual requests > > Interesting. I could try to write a test case in Ruby or Python — something > that would first fetch a large number of docs as individual GETs, then fetch > the same docs in a single _all_docs. >
That could be useful but the bigger chunk of work here will be in setting up and running the profiling for short lived processes. > I’m assuming that the ?revisions=true option doesn’t add a huge amount of > overhead, since the revision tree is already contained in the document’s > b-tree node, right? So it would just require converting the revision's > history into JSON and transmitting that JSON. > > —Jens Yeah, the hardest of bit of all this would just be adding the plumbing to get that option down to the appropriate open_doc calls.
