Boaz, I encourage you to benchmark both techniques. I think you will discover that compaction is faster. However if not, then you will at least have peace of mind that your approach is the best.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Boaz Citrin <bcit...@gmail.com> wrote: > But if replication only copies the leaf then it makes sense that it is > fatser, at least on the same machine. Instead of balancing a tree it just > copies a single revision. > Also I undestand from Jason that compaction tries to catch up, unlike a non > continuos replication. > So it seems that if I don't need old revisions the fastest thing is to > replicate and switchover to the replicated database. > I wonder if I can tune the replication to do copy more revisions besides > the leaf. > בתאריך 31 בינו' 2014 21:57, "Jens Alfke" <j...@couchbase.com> כתב: > > > > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Boaz Citrin <bcit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > @Jason - the purpose is that compaction will not catch up with heavy > > > write rate and will affect performance. > > > > The same will be true of replication. > > > > > I wonder if I can omit the compaction if replication gives the same > > result. > > > Will replication remove old revisions too? > > > > Yes, the replicator only transfers leaf revisions. > > > > —Jens >
