Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-couchdb-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 76202 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2008 16:09:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Nov 2008 16:09:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 11176 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2008 16:09:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-couchdb-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 11128 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2008 16:09:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact couchdb-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 11117 invoked by uid 99); 4 Nov 2008 16:09:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:09:37 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.252.111.222] (HELO web57206.mail.re3.yahoo.com) (216.252.111.222) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:08:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 21465 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Nov 2008 16:08:00 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=0VObdlUksrhX8RBGWJTBXo4S312uYumBlJCschbQ/FySUNHfi9pN8+wr1jrmzfAQklQtMPa2KvCGJEels6xvQ2rlj1QZHM/Gvsuz9t9G8fLzeFoB4FOuEUF6WxBMMjHQa/WfatFAXMT/NFajU5pDVhgz+hvCPRVVNz93j0Pompk=; X-YMail-OSG: wbaAiWYVM1mloXuPUO03dHjFXxWnoT.Q4_aXq.gIiuYPUYA5bMUPVmJIlQUjvmFr_mw5R0eNJ1ipasf_rIg3TocvQBigm.P9obo9uuykiDOLKeIK1rtUmNx5LJk9fJ3_E89qDvfpXFOCp2zByuwVZeiMgw-- Received: from [216.175.184.2] by web57206.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:07:59 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1155.20 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 References: <0E689907656A4B499E477CBB9A24044707FAF656@sryulwis0comx01.coradiant.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:07:59 -0800 (PST) From: Bradford Winfrey Subject: Re: Write performance vs. query performance To: couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-182308134-1225814879=:21219" Message-ID: <482447.21219.qm@web57206.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0-182308134-1225814879=:21219 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Well, the first big plus is that it's non-blocking. So as people are reading, they won't be hung up while the writes finish. Having said that things that are being written while someone is reading won't be immediately available in said reads (but will be available for any which take place there after as long as the update=false parameter isn't specified). As I've used it, I can say that I've been quite pleased with it's responsiveness while many reads and writes are being executed simultaneously. Keep in mind though that each document upon creation is indexed as it's written, so depending on your views, your mileage may vary. All, correct me where appropriate if I've mislead this guy... Brad ________________________________ From: Jonathan Ginter To: couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 4:10:03 PM Subject: Write performance vs. query performance I am curious about the performance of CouchDB for write-intensive applications. Our application typically writes in the tens of millions of records (in this case, documents) per day. Would CouchDB be able to handle that kind of load while still being responsive to queries? Is it only a matter of scaling up the deployed hardware to solve that problem? Thanks. Jonathan --0-182308134-1225814879=:21219--