On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:39, J Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 26, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Robert Buck wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Thank you for kindly answering my last round of questions. Here is >>> another question related to Couch: >>> >>> What sort of locality of reference exists in Couch with respect to >>> retrieval of state ? Is locality of reference solely at the document >>> level, or is locality of reference also exhibited elsewhere that >>> developers can take advantage of ? >>> >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by locality of reference (I know it in the >> context of performance optimizations) > > Same. > > If you're using it this way, I guess the best answer is that documents > might be very sparsely spread out across the disk in a large database > that has not been compacted for a long time. Documents updated around > the same time might be closer to the tail of the file. We really rely > on the filesystem cache to make this something we can forget about. > > Does that answer anything at all?
That's good, that confirms what I have read, just wanted to verify. Some database technologies allow you to "group" data more closely together, some call this a container, others call it a segment. From what I read Couch apparently has no such feature. Thanks so much for your help.
