On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:07 PM, 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. Um, no. The copied revision has to be inserted into the tree on the target database. Worse, the target database is assumed to be 'live' during the whole process, so its tree can't be updated as efficiently as during a replication, where the new database file isn't going to be used at all until the whole procedure finishes. Sorry to pull rank, but while I haven't worked on CouchDB itself, I've written 1½ CouchDB-compatible replicators, and I've worked on a C-based compactor for CouchDB-format b-tree files. I'm pretty sure that compaction is a lot faster. There's just much less work that it has to do. I agree with Jason that you probably need a faster server (or disk) that will let you compact effectively. —Jens
