On Jun 18, 4:11 pm, John Mettraux <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > no, no you are not doing anything wrong. > > http://ruote.rubyforge.org/configuration.html#storage > > ruote-couch is simply the slowest storage around. > > I'm using it here, but the projects imply 'classical' business processes with > most of the step performed by humans, so this 'slowness' doesn't appear. > > Of course I'm trying to improve this situation, but, well FsStorage reads > local files, while CouchStorage grabs information over HTTP... Help is > welcome. >
Thanks for the clarification. One of the several reasons we decided on Couch was the need for fast, somewhat complex queries against the workitems store, which we achieved through custom views. In this scenario, the couch storage is vastly more performative than FsStorage, which appears to have to iterate over all the workitems--bearable at first, but scales terribly. This brings a few questions to mind. Were we perhaps using FsStorage incorrectly? Is there a performative way to query for nested field values in FsStorage? Like you say, the slowness doesn't matter much given that our business process is human-based, except when we're testing. Might you have some recommendations for testing against CouchStorage more performatively? Thanks much for your continued advice. -Ian -- you received this message because you are subscribed to the "ruote users" group. to post : send email to [email protected] to unsubscribe : send email to [email protected] more options : http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en
