Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73712 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2010 03:38:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 26 Oct 2010 03:38:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 31949 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2010 03:38:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 31693 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2010 03:38:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 31683 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2010 03:38:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:38:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,FS_REPLICA,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of darjus@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.54] (HELO mail-ww0-f54.google.com) (74.125.82.54) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:38:43 +0000 Received: by wwb28 with SMTP id 28so764088wwb.23 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=t+kQHfQwqn3jbUXvahsNAp6qHq51s+avoJ92W6pC/0A=; b=lZ/N32ZeOVT2ddEDP0fMc/bWkstfPmPRTNErsb75tmyFr+z7l4OQbpPm7mbBWkOmZ+ QUj7ONXs10Nq/OrGvnr0AnNDNGH6VhbTrEDycE2Cc6JqDCTb8sAeRBDalwjZ/X+XYRWn m1MBAsolCkew0IcUH+3KNNM6hA4i5z92WgVNk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ef0HAOV7oxflXvT0gzwRYEswZXz3PnAuqMfwGb/u+ijPvLYmeJXgNhbIrW8htL/V4R pQ53aN+ZcKkV660XROwftdj7ZS6VzRxbs6J+NMBylWlFDKnDoFqnq3y4xAYl255+++GP VvEtuBCA1UjThHR2mx6Ql4OzZMFMdY6ROJ5z8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.148.20 with SMTP id n20mr7386164wbv.94.1288064303444; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.172.14 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:38:23 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Replicated db copy takes 2 times more space From: Darjus Loktevic To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hey Guys, I've been playing with CouchDB and found something very disturbing for me. I have a database with 1.5M documents, i decided to make a backup and created a new database, then replicated from the original. The end result was that original weights 0.9GB but the replica is 2.5GB! Each document has only 1 revision and I'm running 0.12a. I've also tried compaction, but nothing changes. Is this expected behavior and if so, can someone point me at a document on why could this be? Thanks! DL