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 <bcit...@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 <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Boaz! >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Citrin <bcit...@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? >> >> >> -- >> ,,,^..^,,, >>
