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 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. >> >
