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 manokaran@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMAefeskdqK3-8uY7L9s8RdcFrrqhGQTtFsX8n3H8tCyJ7mpwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMAefeskdqK3-8uY7L9s8RdcFrrqhGQTtFsX8n3H8tCyJ7mpwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:04:44 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAKGmkL1P7q4YoXy+jf+j8Y6ruye+WswdHuAhRGoiOgmwsZuaDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CouchDB: Storing Files and Performance
From: Manokaran K <manokaran@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374953a3d32a04e2b17342

--f46d04374953a3d32a04e2b17342
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

It is better to store it as an attachment to take advantage of CouchDB's
replication features. If you only store the path then you have to sync the
files yourself.

regds,
mano


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Hank Knight <hknight555@gmail.com> wrote:

> For performance reasons, is it generally better to store files in
> CouchDB or to to store them at a fixed location and store the full
> path to the file in CouchDB?
>


-- 
Lord, give us the wisdom to utter words that are gentle and tender, for
tomorrow we may have to eat them.
    -Sen. Morris Udall

--f46d04374953a3d32a04e2b17342--