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 758AF105C8 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 33190 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2014 20:07:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 33081 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2014 20:07:48 -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 33073 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2014 20:07:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:07:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bcitrin@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.174] (HELO mail-pd0-f174.google.com) (209.85.192.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:07:42 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z10so4626305pdj.5 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:07:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=S6wJZGY6nMS7jVSV9ICjxhKTkzFld3rHwayQgspYCHE=; b=SgQt/fVLzhmLerzr+ucuSkF8ZJS8Bpw6YuDjhAKiwI+XlDkqj22vH9YTJt47TCiGJf +OYEzeVIrONON2wKGJJJWX9oDMfK9cYduaa9h9Ko4o/af2Ybn3CB++fWrgBqCm4MC4mv mzuer3+rz9JkAqV80d+z5mldIqN//XMLDvoXoOwWATu8d3nOHmBx1PENL/k1YZ+OzazM 7Nmkk13NMI3X+0qzJR1TVY5AlyMg6YgsFIc12ivfBMTb5SUxkHQ9oGKmVSeTtXN65rbP 2evG9xE4rz6pcF2Og4vzDQc3nzPmsl+ZufhYKoybSDCiaddYVrFHi3UNPOztJVjFwDmD w02Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.252.161 with SMTP id zt1mr22831183pbc.130.1391198840901; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.85.130 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.85.130 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:07:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4AD73424-F7BB-49F4-ABC9-43A88D34BDCA@couchbase.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:07:20 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Replication vs. Compaction From: Boaz Citrin To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e1437b9561104f149b8f5 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b2e1437b9561104f149b8f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable But if replication only copies the leaf then it makes sense that it is fatser, at least on the same machine. Instead of balancing a tree it just copies a single revision. Also I undestand from Jason that compaction tries to catch up, unlike a non continuos replication. So it seems that if I don't need old revisions the fastest thing is to replicate and switchover to the replicated database. I wonder if I can tune the replication to do copy more revisions besides the leaf. =D7=91=D7=AA=D7=90=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9A 31 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=A0=D7=95' 2014 21:5= 7, "Jens Alfke" =D7=9B=D7=AA=D7=91: > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Boaz Citrin wrote: > > > @Jason - the purpose is that compaction will not catch up with heavy > > write rate and will affect performance. > > The same will be true of replication. > > > I wonder if I can omit the compaction if replication gives the same > result. > > Will replication remove old revisions too? > > Yes, the replicator only transfers leaf revisions. > > =E2=80=94Jens --047d7b2e1437b9561104f149b8f5--