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 18A23E5CF for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43595 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2013 18:32:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 43549 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2013 18:32:24 -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 43537 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2013 18:32:24 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:32:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vc0-f169.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username rnewson, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:32:24 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id gb23so3977478vcb.28 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:32:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.34.176 with SMTP id a16mr9609993vdj.44.1358533943021; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.68.209 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:32:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:32:22 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: general question about couch performance From: Robert Newson To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Also, validate_doc_update is an awesome feature, so there :P :D On 18 January 2013 13:25, Mark Hahn wrote: >> Do you have validate_doc_update in some design document > > No, but I use an update handler for every update. I coded the handler so > that I can send the DB an update to an internal field, even a nested one, > and it reads the doc, does the update, and saves it. I really like this > feature. It also reduces conflicts because of the faster turnaround and > less http traffic. It is almost atomic. > > I just found out that my medium server only has 1.7 gigs of ram. I just > bumped up to a large with 7.5 gigs. Even thought the large server has a > little less cpu, the DB runs much better. I assume the file system cache > has some breathing room now. > > I feel guilty that I've caused all this because of a lame mistake in server > choice. However I have really learned a lot and appreciate all the > feedback, which I'm going to implement, even though my app runs decently > now.