Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC20F2FEC for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 17828 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2011 06:10:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 17797 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2011 06:10:10 -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 17784 invoked by uid 99); 3 May 2011 06:10:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:10:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of wanpeebaw@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.180] (HELO mail-ey0-f180.google.com) (209.85.215.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:10:02 +0000 Received: by eyg24 with SMTP id 24so2679606eyg.11 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=DK+a8DTXUJ1C1a8urOTouDi9aa3aEV6dVXf+QgMfJC0=; b=ksU5mHomxL3MMV6eLsFSlyZV5Zu3NEE96eOJmySuqRYBLRYn/FQTNUTzTFelrZ19RX ZQ2/FiIZ9sMfhXEvG/8hl2UhL5bon73v90N21sp9mSL7rpTsEspHEq/Yb76u0SbqA86d +TlWY8SZBy++CqCOT+G7pgzt14oIwINh3ZSzs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=MIcY+UbL1RkVFnrHszzAEHlS17gN+BOuroraweaOrMSXYK2VqOcoDFCj2SydH9h8e9 lcJoTrL0c1npqE5Twk0nICi2kHpq90m7t0oeeDK4wYjYoPsCqQqBjwnW6C0zPzLpDTAI QexcZK/N7n11NPAx/Odf0ZBC+ydMX8ZS8xnjk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.10.143 with SMTP id p15mr1755120ebp.98.1304402981187; Mon, 02 May 2011 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.27.72 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:09:41 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Are Continuous Changes and Filters scalable? From: sleepnova To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174be8c4566fd604a258fc19 --0015174be8c4566fd604a258fc19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, I'm planning to implement a message system (pub/sub) based on Couch's Continuous Changes. I'd like to know does this feature scale and how does it scale? In case I have 10,000~100,000 clients publishing and subscribing messages. Does each message need to iterate through all the filter functions? It doesn't sounds quite scalable. -- - sleepnova --0015174be8c4566fd604a258fc19--