On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Buddhika Jayawardhana <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you so much for pointing out weaknesses of my proposal. Yes, we > should measure the performance of the view server. Can we do a comparison > test between the Old functions with corresponding new function? or should I > research about a tool? It would be really great If devs can suggest any > directions for research.
Yes, we need to compare behaviour of old implementation with a new one for the exact the same cases. Regular test suite isn't a good candidate for such role since it solves a different problem, but here we have a two targets: Query Server (JS) and CouchDB (Erlang). During your work you may really improve Query Server performance, but accidentally reduce it for Erlang side. There is a field for a small researching about, but it shouldn't take a lot of time. > About Node.js, I did not research about any other run-time environment. > Since Jan already has done some experiments, I though It is reasonable to > using Node.js. I didn't make a research either, but quick test of the current query server for SpiderMonkey vs NodeJS shows not much difference between. > Jan's point was that more people will get the opportunity contribute if we > move in to Node.js. Can we try to Implement a streaming communication > between Erlang and Couch.js ? then we can make 'move in to Node.js' > optional. I would like to know the opinion of other member. I like the idea of separating the things. What is really needs for improvement is the query server protocol, no doubts. Once it'll be changed and proved as faster, then it'll be a time for researching of SM replacement with NodeJS/io.js. These are two separate goals for me, but their order is quite clear: to be able compare something, there is need to create equivalent environment and conditions for them and the protocol is a part of that. -- ,,,^..^,,,
