Extremely explanatory! You left my mouth open.... Cheers...
(still open....) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:14 , Anselmo Silva wrote: > > When Building a document management system, will you consider the binary >> _attachment (as couchdb current feature) or a path_field to a >> server/file_system (protected) enviroment? >> >> its an ongoing question about saving binary into a DB ( even with couchDB >> ). From this we can raise some high-level architecture question: >> >> - Will the binary _attachments affect the rebuild index views ( even with >> append ) ? >> - How about replication?( I think it would be hard and intense when >> dealing with higher db size values. ) >> > > A couple of notes: > > If all your stuff is in the DB, managing said stuff becomes easier. > > Not using a database as a blob store is usually recommended because > data needs to pass the border of user- and kernel-land a few times before > being sent. The sendfile() syscall helps here, but Erlang developers say > they don't see a measurable difference. So this looks like a non-issue > in Erlang-land and hence CouchDB. > > If you keep your files external to CouchDB, you need to manage deletes and > updates and everything. > > If you mix in replication, you need to manage replication as well. If that > is > easier or harder for you depends on your setup. > > Attachments have no impact on view index creation time. > > The more data is in a doc, the more resources you need to replicate said > doc. > It is also very convenient, see above. Fast, convenient, efficient: pick > two. > > I don't think that is as big of an architectural question as it might > sound. Start > by building an app that works. If profiling shows that attachment > replication is > your bottleneck, think about solving that in a way that doesn't hurt you. > If you > opt for a more complex external solution now, no one can guarantee that > this > won't include a bottleneck when it comes to profiling. Ripping out > attachments > and do manual handling is not that big a deal (imho), c.f. > DbUpdateNotifications. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > -- Anselmo Silva
