incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Casteleijn <eric.castele...@canonical.com>
Subject Re: getting most recent doc
Date Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:43:13 GMT
On 04/19/2010 10:22 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Eric Casteleijn wrote:

>> I still wonder in that case if there is something you can do to
>>shrink the stored views somewhat: gwibber had a number of views that
>>emitted the whole document, but those documents (typically
>>representing a twitter or identi.ca message) weren't very large in
>>themselves. My database, after compaction was something between 70
>>and 80 MB, whereas the indexes took over a GB. Since
>>gwibber+desktopcouch run on the desktop, where only one client
>>typically talks to couch, I still think we made the right decision
>>to sacrifice speed for diskspace. On a server, both are important
>>though, considering we host multiple couchdbs per user. Luckily we
>>don't compute the views for the gwibber dbs server side, but I'm
>>sure it's something we'll run into again elsewhere.  >

> Were the view indices also compacted?  If so, that's very surprising
> to me.  I should double-check our numbers, but I seem to remember
> the compacted view indices for our case (which had similarly-sized
> documents) being comparable in size to the DBs.

I believe so, unless compacting view indices is a separate process
that is not triggered by compacting a database?

> There are a few things we can do to decrease the size of uncompacted
> view indices.  Chief among those is to put a lower bound on the size
> of a view index write, as reported by Henrik Jensen last month
> (COUCHDB-700).  Cheers, Adam

Cool, I will look that up!

--
eric casteleijn
https://code.launchpad.net/~thisfred
Canonical Ltd.


Mime
View raw message