On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > The attachment data would be streamed, not fully materialized into memory, so > the difference is the size of an attachment chunk (which is under 8k iirc).
That's right for client and direct view request, but I'm asking about _list processing on query server side. Streaming attachments to it via stdin wouldn't solve that problem if attachments will be embed into doc object. If not: I suppose then there would be new command set that breaks compatibility and it's not clear how to fast read and process a lot of chunks within fixed os_process time. -- ,,,^..^,,, On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > The attachment data would be streamed, not fully materialized into memory, so > the difference is the size of an attachment chunk (which is under 8k iirc). > > B. > > On 1 Aug 2012, at 08:46, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm tempted to add support for an optional `include_attachments` query >> parameter that will work with `include_docs=true`. Purpose of this >> parameter would be including the attachments in the included docs. >> Which could be useful sometimes. Thoughts? >> >> - benoît >
