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 paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.163 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=AV4V7JFMl9NhzvDFc+uagSc44qMsEXM9zj9gzYyRbB4suAw/aZeyF+JhNDZnYhd4Fv
         z1Ht2zFK3MAtgwAAwx5ALHzF1GUIvfS9ax5GvQh/wCB88tIiV4GLFz0pLaAuArly830z
         /kJiiKB+MNSk258Nm2x2FCZnUsCfccDrsdRj4=
Message-ID: <49F5DA1C.2030809@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:15:24 -0400
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: couchdb attachments vs storing files on fs or s3 like service
References: <b7cd8ed10904270401s153dce39u2721ea735de8dc91@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b7cd8ed10904270401s153dce39u2721ea735de8dc91@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Benoit,

I think that it'd be hard to tell a priori what the better of the two 
schemes would be. I think the big trade off is that CouchDB doesn't have 
access to sendfile, vs your webserver doesn't have the ease of 
replicating around attachments with your records.

In other words, if this is only ever going to be served from a single 
host, it could be faster to not use files in the main database, but if 
you ever envision using any sharding or distributedness then it may end 
up being faster in the long run to be able to replicate all your data 
without thinking about syncing the external filesystem.

In the end, I think your best bet would be to measure twice and cut once 
though.

HTH,
Paul Davis

Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an application where users will have to upload different media
> with different sizes from picture to video and I currently hesitate
> between allowing them to upload directly in couchdb as attachments or
> just storing on fs or any other system. How uplooading all files in
> attachments resulting in a big db file will impact on performance ? Is
> couchdb storage designed for such thing ?
>
> - beno�t
>