[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12973257#action_12973257
 ] 

Adam Kocoloski commented on COUCHDB-968:
----------------------------------------

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I was thinking, but forcibly resetting all 
of the user's indexes is pretty brutal.  I had hoped to identify the actual 
duplicates and save a single block of IdRevs to disk, updating the 
#db_header.purged_docs to point to it.  The the indexer could remove the dupes 
from the view indexes the next time it runs.

Of course, catching all the specific dupes will be tricky.

> Duplicated IDs in _all_docs
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-968
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-968
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Database Core
>    Affects Versions: 0.10.1, 0.10.2, 0.11.1, 0.11.2, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2
>         Environment: any
>            Reporter: Sebastian Cohnen
>            Assignee: Adam Kocoloski
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 0.11.3, 1.0.2, 1.1
>
>
> We have a database, which is causing serious trouble with compaction and 
> replication (huge memory and cpu usage, often causing couchdb to crash b/c 
> all system memory is exhausted). Yesterday we discovered that db/_all_docs is 
> reporting duplicated IDs (see [1]). Until a few minutes ago we thought that 
> there are only few duplicates but today I took a closer look and I found 10 
> IDs which sum up to a total of 922 duplicates. Some of them have only 1 
> duplicate, others have hundreds.
> Some facts about the database in question:
> * ~13k documents, with 3-5k revs each
> * all duplicated documents are in conflict (with 1 up to 14 conflicts)
> * compaction is run on a daily bases
> * several thousands updates per hour
> * multi-master setup with pull replication from each other
> * delayed_commits=false on all nodes
> * used couchdb versions 1.0.0 and 1.0.x (*)
> Unfortunately the database's contents are confidential and I'm not allowed to 
> publish it.
> [1]: Part of http://localhost:5984/DBNAME/_all_docs
> ...
> {"id":"9997","key":"9997","value":{"rev":"6096-603c68c1fa90ac3f56cf53771337ac9f"}},
> {"id":"9999","key":"9999","value":{"rev":"6097-3c873ccf6875ff3c4e2c6fa264c6a180"}},
> {"id":"9999","key":"9999","value":{"rev":"6097-3c873ccf6875ff3c4e2c6fa264c6a180"}},
> ...
> [*]
> There were two (old) servers (1.0.0) in production (already having the 
> replication and compaction issues). Then two servers (1.0.x) were added and 
> replication was set up to bring them in sync with the old production servers 
> since the two new servers were meant to replace the old ones (to update 
> node.js application code among other things).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to