[SERVER-22330] Impact of field names Created: 27/Jan/16 Updated: 29/Jan/16 Resolved: 29/Jan/16 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | WiredTiger |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Question | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Judy Han [X] | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Environment: |
Linux 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Description |
|
We are mapping one type of our existing in-memory objects to mongodb. All field names are predefined and they have been used in production. I did some simple experiment - if the field is an indexed field, the long field name seems to have a big performance (throughput) impact. If the field is not an indexed field, the long field name seems to have very little impact, performance wise or storage wise. I am using wiredTiger which by default has compression enabled. Some mongodb blog mentions that wiredTiger compression will make the long field names less of an issue for storage and for performance. Thanks in advance! |
| Comments |
| Comment by Ramon Fernandez Marina [ 29/Jan/16 ] |
|
Thanks for your report Judy.Han. Please note that the SERVER project is for reporting bugs or feature suggestions for the MongoDB server. For MongoDB-related support discussion please post on the mongodb-user group or Stack Overflow with the mongodb tag, where your question will reach a larger audience. A question like this involving more discussion would be best posted on the mongodb-user group. See also our Technical Support page for additional support resources. Regards, |
| Comment by Alexander Gorrod [ 27/Jan/16 ] |
|
Judy.Han I have moved this ticket from WiredTiger to Core Server, since it is related to MongoDB usage of WiredTiger. |