couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zachary Zolton <zachary.zol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: couchdb attachments vs storing files on fs or s3 like service
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:29:01 GMT
benoît

i too recently faced this decision in my project, but chose not to
store image uploads as CouchDB attachments.

given that, for Amazon EC2, it's more expensive to store data via ESB
(+ S3 backups) than S3 —and the fact that i expect my site to store
MANY photos! whereas, i am still considering using CouchDB attachment
storage for uploaded documents/PDFs, since i estimate having to store
relatively few of them.

of course, as soon as CouchDB has an S3 backend, the economics would change!


cheers,

zach

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/27 Damien Katz <damien@apache.org>:
>> Attachments don't affect general performance except during compaction, where
>> the bytes must be copied to a new file. Eventually we'll have a binary
>> object plugin, to allow binary objects to be written to alternate storage.
>>
>> -Damien
>>
> Thanks for the answer. About compaction, are old revisions of a doc
> deleted just after you copy the latest to the new file or do you keep
> the full original db file until compaction end ?
>
> - benoît
>

Mime
View raw message