couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: How many databases are too many?
Date Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:32:30 GMT
The point is that idle databases are free, barring the disk space they
consume. They'll be closed and paged out. It's the active set of
databases that matter hence the suggestion to look at your open file
descriptor limit, etc.


On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mikeal Rogers <> wrote:
> I know of one server that did over a million, of course not all were
> highly active.
> On Thursday, January 27, 2011, Zachary Zolton <> wrote:
>> Johnny,
>> CouchDB is known to handle thousands of databases per server, but
>> depending on your usage you may need to do some tweaks for the max
>> number of open databases/file descriptors:
>> Cheers,
>> Zach
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Nelson
>> <> wrote:
>>> TLDR: Does CouchDB (conspiring with the OS?) handle thousands of databases
>>> well or should I use the tried-and-true-but-aggravating mapping on
>>> [group_id, ...] or is there a better pattern that I am unfamiliar with?
>>> I'm building a web application that is group-oriented, by which I mean that
>>> each user is interested in documents produced only by the group to which
>>> they belong. There is no sharing of information across groups at all.
>>> Since these groups are completely isolated, it seems logical to house each
>>> one there own database but this makes the side of me familiar with RDBMS
>>> very uncomfortable. I found one blog post by John Wood which suggested that
>>> there "appears to be no “penalty” for hosting many databases within the same
>>> CouchDB server." However, in my case, there would be roughly 1,000 - 5,000
>>> groups. From what I understand, each database is stored as the data file
>>> plus various index files. This would mean there are thousands of file
>>> handles -- it seems like a bad idea.
>>> Thanks in advance, Johnny

View raw message