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 9FA24CFF3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 87503 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2013 17:33:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 87226 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2013 17:32:59 -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 87217 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jun 2013 17:32:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jens@couchbase.com designates 206.225.164.28 as permitted sender) Received: from [206.225.164.28] (HELO EXHUB020-1.exch020.serverdata.net) (206.225.164.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:53 +0000 Received: from EXVMBX020-1.exch020.serverdata.net ([169.254.4.191]) by EXHUB020-1.exch020.serverdata.net ([206.225.164.28]) with mapi; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:32:29 -0700 From: Jens Alfke To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:32:28 -0700 Subject: Are pull replications really still faster than push? Thread-Topic: Are pull replications really still faster than push? Thread-Index: Ac5t3CMdN6o/MkJcSPezQKZ+7MOEqA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The wiki documentation of the _replicate API says: > As of CouchDB 0.9, pull replication is a lot more efficient and resistant= to errors, and it is suggested that you use pull replication in most cases= , especially if your documents are large or you have large attachments. (http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Replication) This was probably written circa 2009. Is it still true? I know from experie= nce that the pull replication protocol has a big bottleneck in that it has = to fetch revisions using individual GET requests, whereas push replication = can send them in bulk via a POST to _bulk_docs. In practice I have seen thi= s have a big effect on pull-replication performance. =97Jens=