On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, that's what prompted the post, actually. I had started from the > point of view that external attachments would be optional. That brings > quite a lot of complexity, so I'm basically asking if there's any > objections to moving wholly over to this new strategy? >
I object, my lord. Also, I fancy your scarf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3gMN97TKw > B. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Just one note below for now. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:20, Robert Newson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Most of you know that I'm currently working on 'external attachments'. >>>> I've spent quite some time reading and modifying the current code and >>>> have tried several approaches to the problem. I've implemented one >>>> version fairly completely >>>> (https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/external_attachments) which >>>> places any attachment over a threshold (defaulting to 256 kb) into a >>>> separate file (and all files that are sent chunked). This branch works >>>> for PUT/GET/DELETE, local and remote replication and compaction. >>>> External attachments do not support compression or ranges yet. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Pro >>>> 1) we can remove the 4k blocking in .couch files. >>> >>> Not if we have a threshold for external storage. Only if *all* >>> attachments are external. >>> Yes? >>> >>> -Randall >>> >> >> Yes. >> >
