> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 15:31 PM, Adam Estrada > <estrada.adam.gro...@gmail.com > > I wanted to know how large field's size affects performance.
If you use replication then it's a huge impact on performance as the data gets sent over the network. It's also a memory hog so there's less memory and more garbage collection. Indexing and merging is slower because of additional bytes being copied. If there's a lot of binary data and performance is important and diskspace is not a commodity then you shouldn't store it in the index; the index size can double during optimizing. > > But i wasn't sure how to design the schema. > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Stefan Matheis < > > matheis.ste...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Ezequiel, > > > > Am 06.04.2011 20:38, schrieb Ezequiel Calderara: > > Anyone knows any storage for images that performs well, other than FS ? > > > > you may have a look on http://www.danga.com/mogilefs/ ? :) > > > > Regards > > Stefan > > Stefan, we looked at mogilefs, also couchdb and mongodb. > AFAIR (As Far as I Read :P), mogilefs runs on *nix OS, while we are using > microsoft as the OS. (yeah, we are the open source "evangelist" in our > company :P) > > Just for the moment we well start using Solr for storing and indexing (some > info at least) images and docs. We have yet to see what are the needs in > terms of scalability to choose between the options. > > Thanks all... > If you have more info send it :)
