From user-return-23365-apmail-couchdb-user-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Wed Jan 30 07:53:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64589E497 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69251 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2013 07:53:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 69218 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2013 07:53:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 69209 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2013 07:53:55 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:53:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of snbartell@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.53] (HELO mail-pa0-f53.google.com) (209.85.220.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:53:47 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id bg4so929052pad.40 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:53:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=WYS+vRooiN6/5MBmgVSQANBto+EfkGoUNn2gZbkEGdo=; b=nrTZLS6xW5jPW+myVJiMo4kMk8dEmgalTY6BNknMStgzGQcoGGQA3R4cmk85di0zvE S1Ls4pZnqipXyvJF5hbuOmzZBhLkRtn9zbqEQyj3sLSLUoC9XuPDEzcTTj2Ba6MDbPCS 2yvC7Hm2NP+seJ81oSBOKrCF26htLT3QyO7qIBcGTnLulZ2DaCFZ12YyMoQoTFVxYJrd P9G7lyl4WEH7TaLD/8rJYydmTwli1VJ+K8exZ0cb4BPDyq6iqDs/i7kMRjedSOCp7Uim 4IF6vGAK1YN4JsPAW3+GEudvRV3D2A1sPYTUeYV4J7G6N6tZimgLcWKISGDvJAbrr/h2 jM0A== X-Received: by 10.68.233.196 with SMTP id ty4mr10509206pbc.23.1359532407446; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:53:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (cpe-75-84-69-155.socal.res.rr.com. [75.84.69.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vo6sm843414pbc.8.2013.01.29.23.53.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:53:26 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Bartell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: replication by view Message-Id: <37CD5193-799E-4D1C-A026-B414C1DC1796@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:53:27 -0800 To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Benoit, I'm curious about a comment you made earlier (from Nathans = half-baked idea) and have a few questions to spawn from it: ``` There is another solution though, replication using a view change and = real replication using a view like in rcouch [1]. With the validate_doc_read function [2] you can do that. No need for a background process. = Hopefully this will be merged in couchdb. This have been tested on a relatively = large scale ``` 1) If I understand the couch docs correctly, using views as replication = filters yields no performance benefit. Its just like running plain jane = filters. I figure thats why you are mentioning rcouch where the = replication source is indexed data. I just want to clarify that I = understand this. 2) For each replicator filter, or view that is run, is a single couchjs = process spawned to handle evaling the javascript? 3) What if we write our views in erlang and then use those as = replication filters? Could we get around the extra overhead of couchjs = processes this way? 4) Can filters be erlang, thus getting around extra couchjs process = overhead? Thanks for any insight on these newb questions. sb