couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next-generation attachment storage.
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:36:31 GMT
Yup, that's what prompted the post, actually. I had started from the
point of view that external attachments would be optional. That brings
quite a lot of complexity, so I'm basically asking if there's any
objections to moving wholly over to this new strategy?

B.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just one note below for now.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:20, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Most of you know that I'm currently working on 'external attachments'.
>>> I've spent quite some time reading and modifying the current code and
>>> have tried several approaches to the problem. I've implemented one
>>> version fairly completely
>>> (https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/external_attachments) which
>>> places any attachment over a threshold (defaulting to 256 kb) into a
>>> separate file (and all files that are sent chunked). This branch works
>>> for PUT/GET/DELETE, local and remote replication and compaction.
>>> External attachments do not support compression or ranges yet.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Pro
>>> 1) we can remove the 4k blocking in .couch files.
>>
>> Not if we have a threshold for external storage. Only if *all*
>> attachments are external.
>> Yes?
>>
>> -Randall
>>
>
> Yes.
>

Mime
View raw message