Make Ruby driver automatically use r.json in inserts so that it's fast.

[mlucy]

No description provided.

[coffeemug]

@mlucy -- could you also do a quick performance test with and without r.json and post results here?

[mlucy]

Will do.

[mlucy]

This is in review #675 by @AtnNn . It seems to speed up inserts of 10k-sized documents by ~30x over the old driver (by which I mean the newer old driver with the fast protobuf library).

[mlucy]

Also, note that I only turned this on for insert, since encoding objects as JSON in normal protobuf terms messes with the backtraces and is in general more confusing than it has to be.

[coffeemug]

It seems to speed up inserts of 10k-sized documents by ~30x

👍

[coffeemug]

Also, note that I only turned this on for insert

To the person that did the other drivers (@jdoliner ?), do we also fall back to it on inserts only in Python and JS?

[mlucy]

I'm not sure anyone did the other drivers yet, did they?

[coffeemug]

I think Joe did it as part of the r.json command.

[wmrowan]

No, Joe added the command but did not add it to insert. Note that this is trickier than just wrapping the argument with r.json(JSON.stringify(doc)) because have to first decided if this document can be correctly serialized as json. I'm working on adding this functionality to JS and Python.

[wmrowan]

The JS version of this is part of branch fast_js_protobuf and which is currently in review 680.

[mlucy]

The ruby changes are in next.

[mlucy]

Re-assigning to @wmrowan because he seems to be tracking the JS and python changes in this issue.

[coffeemug]

@wmrowan -- is this functionality in next in the other drivers? Should we close this issue?

[wmrowan]

I haven't yet merged this because I have some misgivings about the amount of testing we've done on this functionality. I talked to @mlucy on Friday about the state of testing and while we've both confirmed performance boosts though casual perf tests neither of us has written polyglot tests covering all the edge cases.

[coffeemug]

What's the plan for getting this in? I'd like to tag 1.7 tonight.

[wmrowan]

I'd like to work with @mlucy today to properly test this. I have the
feeling there are some lurking problems.

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM, coffeemug notifications@github.com wrote:

What's the plan for getting this in? I'd like to tag 1.7 tonight.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1085#issuecomment-20302223
.

[coffeemug]

Ok.

[wmrowan]

This is in next. Tests are in review 689 by @mlucy.