Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of email.workbench@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: email.workbench@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:59:11 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimvDxfTth=m_oZmYJYpKp8KoKh3wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Frugal Erlang vs Resources Hungry CouchDB
From: Zdravko Gligic <zgligic@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Folks,

In many places I have read how Erlang runs on small devices and how
(as a result) it is very frugal with resources.  I think that I have
read that or at least something to that effect.  However, none of that
seems to apply to CouchDB.

I believe that I read somewhere that the length of key names can make
a significant reduction in disk usage - as in, cutting it in half or
less.  However, when I asked about it on #couchdb, a very smart person
stated point blank (with a bit of attitude or maybe just conviction)
that if I was worried about disk then I should not be using CouchDB.

In many places I have read how both DB and View compactions can free
up as much as 90% of occupied space.  Similarly, I have read how
CouchDB would be struggling on smaller VPS allocations and how a mere
2GB database would struggle with anything less than that much in RAM -
especially when compactions and/or cleanups are running.

Whenever I come across such CouchDB resources related postings, I keep
thinking about all of those Couches on all of those mobile devices (at
least in all of those presentations and slides) and asking my self
"how do they do that" ?

Regards,
teslan