benoît i too recently faced this decision in my project, but chose not to store image uploads as CouchDB attachments.
given that, for Amazon EC2, it's more expensive to store data via ESB (+ S3 backups) than S3 —and the fact that i expect my site to store MANY photos! whereas, i am still considering using CouchDB attachment storage for uploaded documents/PDFs, since i estimate having to store relatively few of them. of course, as soon as CouchDB has an S3 backend, the economics would change! cheers, zach On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/4/27 Damien Katz <[email protected]>: >> Attachments don't affect general performance except during compaction, where >> the bytes must be copied to a new file. Eventually we'll have a binary >> object plugin, to allow binary objects to be written to alternate storage. >> >> -Damien >> > Thanks for the answer. About compaction, are old revisions of a doc > deleted just after you copy the latest to the new file or do you keep > the full original db file until compaction end ? > > - benoît >
