incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: Documents with many attachments
Date Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:07:48 GMT
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Chris Anderson <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Dave Ray <> wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> Is there any reason in terms of performance, stability, or good taste,
>>> that I should avoid adding 100s or 1000s of attachments to a document?
>>> I have about 3000 pngs on a document and things seem to work fine
>>> (aside from Futon being a little unusable when I view the doc), but if
>>> this is going to cause me trouble later I can split it up into
>>> multiple docs with single attachments without much more work. Just
>>> wondering.
>> At a certain point, you could have too many, and that would start to
>> suck. Since they are all in one doc the metadata for the attachments
>> has to fit in memory.
>> Probably the best metric you can have is the size of the JSON stubs
>> you're schlepping around on the doc. With 100k attachments the JSON
>> doc would be too big to deal with. Maybe you can handle all the JSON
>> for 10k attachments -- a doc with one thousand attachments is not that
>> many kb of JSON.
> There's also one of the replication directions. I don't remember
> which, but one of them doesn't like having lots or large attachments.
> This might be changing as we got to a multipart mime format, but for
> 0.10.x or before the issue exists.
> Paul Davis

Push replication (local source, remote target) is the one that will fail badly with this many
attachments in 0.10.x or lower.  Should be better in the next release, as Paul points out.


View raw message