On 11/01/2009, at 4:46 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 10 Jan 2009, at 19:07, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kurt Mackey <[email protected]>
wrote:
Now, the obvious downside is that it makes it more difficult to do
cross-customer queries. But what other problems are there with
this idea? Assuming that there were lots and lots and lots of
accounts, what performance implications are there to giving each
their own DB rather than making them all share?
CouchDB keeps each database in it's own file, so if you can spread
the
files across disks (using symlinks for now) you should get better
performance with many databases. DB-per-user is a good pattern also
because it means you can let users replicate their entire account
locally, without worrying about filtering out extra data.
In addition, if you name your databases "foo/bar" CouchDB will
actually
create that as a structure on disk to avoid running into trouble with
filesystems that don't like a lot of files in a single directory.
Setups with 1 million databases representing users have been tested
successfully.
Hmmm. The filesystem layout changes that I've proofed, and had
accepted for incorporation, changes this. Filenames are munged to
allow arbitrary characters, and so '/' is escaped.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.
-- J. M. Barre
