Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bcitrin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOxguM3Kt+fgyWUU794khL3UG2T=K3FJaf7Jo4pkCTTtCaDKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOxguM3Kt+fgyWUU794khL3UG2T=K3FJaf7Jo4pkCTTtCaDKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:48:58 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAOxguM2a4zyfzjYzxkjhJzEK+R84gtLhOtv5-bPLg_nQPhZjBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Finding the right value for compaction configuration parameters
From: Boaz Citrin <bcitrin@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11343b4ecc3b2c04e9309e17

--001a11343b4ecc3b2c04e9309e17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello,

I wonder if anyone had the chance to read this and has any idea...

Also, we are looking for some consulting, so if anyone can offer his
services please email me directly.

Thanks,

Boaz


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Boaz Citrin <bcitrin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Testing database compaction with various doc_buffer_size values I get
> completely different results.
> Documentation is fairly vague, so I wonder how to choose the right value;
> What parameters affect this - HD buffer size, average doc size,
> database size, fragmentation, etc... ?!
>
> Same goes for view compaction and keyvalue_buffer_size.
>
> (For me the the compaction with default values was many times slower
> than with the values that gave the faster compaction).
>
> Thanks!
>

--001a11343b4ecc3b2c04e9309e17--