[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-583?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12804946#action_12804946
]
Filipe Manana commented on COUCHDB-583:
---------------------------------------
@Chris
Good point, I totally agree.
It would be interesting to test with real couchapps, real data and see how
worth it really is.
A 10Mb text file, for instance, was compressed to about 100Kb in one of my
tests.
Also, as for the minified JavaScript files for example, it's still worth
compressing them. For example, the minified Ext JS lib file
(http://www.extjs.com, ext-all.js) is about 630Kb big. Compressed with gzip
stays at about 170Kb, therefore a reasonably good size reduction.
As Damien said in a previous comment, not only saves disk space but also
reduces disk IO (attachment download requests, compaction).
I also look forward to see the impact on real, production level, applications.
> storing attachments in compressed form and serving them in compressed form if
> accepted by the client
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-583
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-583
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Database Core, HTTP Interface
> Environment: CouchDB trunk
> Reporter: Filipe Manana
> Attachments: couchdb-583-trunk-10th-try.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-11th-try.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-12th-try.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-13th-try.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-14th-try-git.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-15th-try-git.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-3rd-try.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-4th-try-trunk.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-5th-try.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-6th-try.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-7th-try.patch,
> couchdb-583-trunk-8th-try.patch, couchdb-583-trunk-9th-try.patch,
> jira-couchdb-583-1st-try-trunk.patch, jira-couchdb-583-2nd-try-trunk.patch
>
>
> This feature allows Couch to gzip compress attachments as they are being
> received and store them in compressed form.
> When a client asks for downloading an attachment (e.g. GET
> somedb/somedoc/attachment.txt), the attachment is sent in compressed form if
> the client's http request has gzip specified as a valid transfer encoding for
> the response (using the http header "Accept-Encoding"). Otherwise couch
> decompresses the attachment before sending it back to the client.
> Attachments are compressed only if their MIME type matches one of those
> listed in a separate config file. Compression level is also configurable in
> the default.ini file.
> This follows Damien's suggestion from 30 November:
> "Perhaps we need a separate user editable ini file to specify compressable or
> non-compressable files (would probably be too big for the regular ini file).
> What do other web servers do?
> Also, a potential optimization is to compress the file while writing to disk,
> and serve the compressed bytes directly to clients that can handle it, and
> decompressed for those that can't. For compressable types, it's a win for
> both disk IO for reads and writes, and CPU on read."
> Patch attached.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
