couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Frugal Erlang vs Resources Hungry CouchDB
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:42:20 GMT
On Jun 30, 2011 11:52 PM, "Zdravko Gligic" <zgligic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I mapped out a set of web 2.0 level questions:
> >>> a) How many of the update headers are actually useful?  Is it just the
> >>> last successfully written one or even just a few last ones ?
>
> Jason Smith tried reducing them to my 0.2 level:
> >> Excellent point. That's just it, isn't it?
> >> How useful are the lower rungs of a ladder? How useful is the food you
> >> ate a year ago?
>
> Jens Alfke tried re-reduced them even much lower:
> > How useful was the accident insurance policy you paid for last year and
then
> > didn’t have an accident? :-)
> > The update header is largely there for disaster recovery.
>
> But neither one even bothered trying to answer my question of whether
> just the last updated header or perhaps the last few are ever used.
>
> > The update header is largely there for disaster recovery.
>
> I was also under an impression that the update headers (pointers to
> the root of btree) are also somehow being used for reading
> consistency.  If so then this might suggest that a database could be
> rolled back to some previous point in time.  How far back and how
> practical is another question.
>
> In any case, this whole thread is about me trying to understand what
> is happening under the hood - strictly in trying to understand for
> what CouchDB can best be used.  However, since we are being a bit
> flippant about it, let me give you my 0.2 impression of CouchDB.
>

Eek. While these answers were almost certainly meant to be light-hearted and
playful I see how they didn't really make the answer explicit. In my
experience the CouchDB community tries in general to be extremely respectful
and helpful and I like that about it. Thanks for reminding us to be mindful
of our approach, though. I think both answers were genuinely meant to answer
your question. If the followup answers still have not clarified the
situation please shoot back with questions, as you should whenever
anything's unclear. Your participation and curiosity are welcome and
encouraged. I would personally love to see your experience be so positive
that you blog about these details or document them on the wiki since you are
not the first to ask and won't be the last.

> On the surface, that RESTful API is so darn appealing and mostly
> because many portals have gone back and added such RESTful API's to
> whatever gunk they had beforehand.  Youtube is an excellent example.
> So, the most appealing thing to me is that by using CouchDB, a
> publicly exposable API to my own application ends up already being
> baked in by CouchDB itself, without me having to do any additional
> work. It's a whole another kettle of fish, whether I actually need to
> expose such an API or even worse - what if it's detrimental to me to
> do so and whether it is even possible not to.
>

You totally nailed one of my favorite arguments for CouchDB: APIs "for
free".

To the point about disk usage: there has been, and probably will be more in
the future, work done toward reducing this in the current release cycle.
While this thread hopefully demonstrates the reasoning behind the waste
we're well aware that it is beyond many users expectations and it's
important we don't let that sour their view of CouchDB.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message