On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:54 PM, kowsik wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:09 PM, kowsik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> My gut tells me the second case will be better for performance since >>> the TCP connection (for the _changes feed) from A to B persists and >>> the docs are sent one way without making a request (and hence less >>> data transmitted per change). Is my hypothesis correct? I haven't yet >>> looked at the packets to understand the differences between the two >>> scenarios. But maybe someone else has already. >> >> This scenario changes with the new replicator (in trunk only) which >> adds more parallelism and the difference between pull and push >> replications is much shorter now. >> >> Recently Wayne Conrad tried out this new replicator and saw much >> better performance/behaviour compared to the old one: >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-user/201103.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > Awesome! I have a follow up question on replication. I'm using couch > as a message bus so have a lot of short-lived documents that come and > go. Based on a previous thread, my understanding is that these > documents are kept around in a deleted state forever for conflict > resolution. If OTOH, I purge these documents, do the purge changes get > propagated through replication?
Nope, purges are local and cannot replicate. > Also is there a way in _all_docs to walk just the deleted documents so > that I can purge them? Hmm, not in _all_docs, but I imagine you could apply a filter for them to the _changes feed. Best, Adam
