incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Dionne <>
Subject Re: Frugal Erlang vs Resources Hungry CouchDB
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:13:46 GMT
On Jul 2, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Jason Smith wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Jens Alfke <> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Zdravko Gligic wrote:
>>> But neither one even bothered trying to answer my question of whether
>>> just the last updated header or perhaps the last few are ever used.
>> Just the last one. But at any point in time, the last one is vital for recovery.
It just becomes useless after another one is successfully appended.
> Isn't that what I said? :)
> The evidence indicates "no." That's a shame. In my daily life I always
> worry about starting from an accidental advantage (speaking English),
> and assuming everybody else is advantaged, ultimately only causing
> confusion. In other words: Most Americans talk too fast, with too much
> slang.
> Anyway, to right my wrong and make it clear:
> The bottom rung of a ladder *was* important, when you stepped on it.
> Once at the top, we do not care about the bottom rungs.

Well it's important on the way down too :)

> Similarly, the food you ate last year kept you alive, so it *was* very
> important. But today, last year's food is not relevant.
> With CouchDB (as others said), the last header is the important one;
> but once a new one is written, the old header is not relevant.
> (They might be *slightly* relevant in rare cases. For example, if your
> tape media was damaged and you have a partial backup; the old headers,
> now at the "end" of the truncated .couch file, are once again useful
> to access the older data. That situation however is very unlikely
> and/or completely contrived.)
> -- 
> Iris Couch

View raw message