Hi Folks, In many places I have read how Erlang runs on small devices and how (as a result) it is very frugal with resources. I think that I have read that or at least something to that effect. However, none of that seems to apply to CouchDB.
I believe that I read somewhere that the length of key names can make a significant reduction in disk usage - as in, cutting it in half or less. However, when I asked about it on #couchdb, a very smart person stated point blank (with a bit of attitude or maybe just conviction) that if I was worried about disk then I should not be using CouchDB. In many places I have read how both DB and View compactions can free up as much as 90% of occupied space. Similarly, I have read how CouchDB would be struggling on smaller VPS allocations and how a mere 2GB database would struggle with anything less than that much in RAM - especially when compactions and/or cleanups are running. Whenever I come across such CouchDB resources related postings, I keep thinking about all of those Couches on all of those mobile devices (at least in all of those presentations and slides) and asking my self "how do they do that" ? Regards, teslan
