On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2013, Jason Smith wrote: > > > Nine times faster than O(n) is still O(n). > > > > If people take this on, I will be your biggest cheerleader. My point is > to > > ask what problem this solves. After some thought I think it does NOT > solve > > a technical problem, it solves a perception and adoption problem. > > > > The problem a 9x speed up solves is, "I am prototyping something and my > > benchmarks are not impressive." Maybe that is enough. If CouchDB causes > > friction for adopters, then this would actually be a big priority. > > > > I see a Pareto distribution of data set sizes. Databases are either > small, > > with all views building reasonably quickly; or very large (above 10GB) > > where no speedup will change the fundamental feeling of the view build: > you > > kick it off, then you wait. And again, these speeds diminish in > importance > > over a project life cycle. > > > > > the problem to solve here is how making the view engine more efficient than > it is now. Becoming more efficient will naturally make it faster in this > case. > > We can also make it more concurrent or //. o(n) is another problem to > solve (or not). > > on a pure rechnical point faster means faster whatever the feeling is. If > your 10Mb or 100Mb of data goes over a more efficient or > faster protocol/process it will be more efficient/faster whatever the > feeling a human can have. At the end you will also feel better with a > reduced > power bill. > :) Yes, I think the community has persuaded me about the merits of a speed boost.
