Hi there, I do not have attachments...
$ ls -lh
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 83G Feb 20 02:40 test.couch
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 23G Feb 20 16:33 test.couch.compact
$ du -sh
107G .
still... from 19Go to 83Go... huge difference.
P.
Robert Newson a écrit :
I expect the b-tree wastage is minimal (though not zero).
I've wondered what happens on filesystems that don't support sparse
files, I assume they'd just be slower and use more disk space. Given
that the holes vanish after compaction, I suspected a bad calculation
in the code (couch_db.erl, I think), but I've not found it, it seems
to do the right thing. HFS+ doesn't support holes but I'm pretty sure
NTFS does.
Btw, it's mostly around attachments. If you add lots of documents but
no attachments, ls and df are in close agreement.
B.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jens Alfke <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Pascal Borghino wrote:
I am currently compacting it... even if 'Compaction rewrites the database
file, removing outdated document revisions and deleted documents'... no
document should be outdate neither deleted...
In addition to the sparseness of the file, another reason for the size
difference might be obsolete b-tree nodes. The file is append-only, so any
time a b-tree changes, the old nodes remain in the file. If you've done a
large number of individual insertions, that space might be significant.
(Probably not gigabytes, though.)
[email protected] wrote:
I find the actual
consumed space is far, far less that 'ls' shows. CouchDB .couch files
are very sparse, large gaps of unwritten data, ostensibly to keep
btree and document items separate, but these 'holes' vanish after
compaction, even if you have zero updates and deletes.
Hm. But not all filesystems support sparse files. HFS+, the Mac OS
filesystem, doesn't. (Does NTFS?) Is there an option to suppress the gaps?
—Jens
