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 kxepal@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOxguM1a8kiOmV9QnV64rrDx-39O_mPvpowFDCqT85ovoQjQ8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOxguM3Kt+fgyWUU794khL3UG2T=K3FJaf7Jo4pkCTTtCaDKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHdjipLAV4hRQH4cR3kUuB36nGuukpc-wzwMD-c4d7Ug-N3LxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOxguM1a8kiOmV9QnV64rrDx-39O_mPvpowFDCqT85ovoQjQ8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:25:06 +0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAHdjipJkOogUvKSypDiy-yHequCkpw2ZZ9y1+BGUMZqENKUQPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Finding the right value for compaction configuration parameters
From: Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com>
To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Feel free to post here! I think others would be also interested in
your experience and could share (I hope so) their own too.
--
,,,^..^,,,


On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Boaz Citrin <bcitrin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Yes, I have some numbers, do you want me to share here or somewhere else?
>
> Best,
>
> Boaz
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Boaz!
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Citrin <bcitrin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Testing database compaction with various doc_buffer_size values I get
>> > completely different results.
>> > Documentation is fairly vague, so I wonder how to choose the right value;
>> > What parameters affect this - HD buffer size, average doc size,
>> > database size, fragmentation, etc... ?!
>> >
>> > Same goes for view compaction and keyvalue_buffer_size.
>>
>> These parameters does affect on what they are named: they defines
>> buffer size for copying data from db/view file to the .compact one.
>> What information you think is missed?
>>
>> > (For me the the compaction with default values was many times slower
>> > than with the values that gave the faster compaction).
>>
>> All numbers have their cost: large buffers requires more memory while
>> they reduces I/O operations and vice versa. Much likely, that default
>> values wouldn't provide you high performance since they aimed to fit
>> everyone, but that's why you may tweak them for your needs (:
>>
>> I believe, that it's possible to revise them, but first need to
>> collect information in what environment which values are effective and
>> which are not. Would you like to help us with that?
>>
>>
>> --
>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>