Is that available in 0.9.0? I tried a POST but I get a 405 error.
[Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:46:08 GMT] [info] [<0.22689.306>] 172.16.80.64 - - 'GET' /mydb/_compact/meta_in 404 [Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:47:43 GMT] [info] [<0.22706.306>] 172.16.80.64 - - 'POST' /mydb/_compact/meta_in 405 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Kocoloski [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: view size extremely disk inefficient On Jul 7, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Peter Hsu wrote: > I need help explaining why the sizes of my views are so large. > > The emitted rows for the document have a key length of about 40 > bytes (it's an array, if that matters) and a view length of about > 400 bytes (raw json). However, I'm seeing over 2k/row average over > the view. Factoring in the overhead of writing the btrees still > doesn't really make sense. > > At 10M docs, I have almost 3.2k/message. The views were generated > at 3000 doc increments. At the beginning, with the first view > generation, the view size was about 2MB. This is about 800 bytes > per row, which could be reasonable. > > I measured the incremental size of the view after every 3000 rows > were added to the view. By the time I'm at 30k rows, I'm seeing an > increment in the view size of 4MB, which is over 1k/doc. By the end > of 10M messages, it's over a 10MB increment, which is over 3k/doc. > > It may be interesting that a lot of my keys are identical. Does > that affect things? > > This is with the 0.9.0 running on cent5 (64 bit). > > Peter Hi Peter, have you tried compacting the view? POST /dbname/_compact/designname Best, Adam
