On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Richard Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your idea of keeping all the forecasts for (say) a month in a separate > database is neat! We could then simply delete a moths worth of data by simply > dropping the relevant database. > > If we first made a copy of the database file before dropping it from couchDB, > is it possible to reload the database file copy into another couchDb > instance? This would allow us to create an archive our old data in case > someone suddenly decides that they need some very old forecast for auditing > reasons. > > Yes… in fact you could just use built in replication to do that before you drop the db. > -----Original Message----- > From: Filippo Fadda [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013 10:14 a.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Is this use case correct for Couchdb > > I don't know if can be an option for you, but you can use separate databases > per forecast, and when don't you need them anymore, you simply delete them. > > CouchDB is an append only database, the only way to remove revisions and > deleted documents is through a compaction, but still some information remain. > The alternative is purge every single document revision and then run a > compaction. But you can't specify an expiring date for your documents. You > can do it creating a view in which you store the expiration date, but you'll > need a script to purge documents querying the view using as key the > expiration date. > > CouchDB doesn't do it automatically. > > -Filippo > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:36 PM, Richard Schmidt wrote: > >> We are currently using a Oracle DB. A very expensive, and surprisingly >> unreliable way of storing documents. Out super reliable oracle appliance >> died and took out business with it. >> http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/metservice-promises-mid-morning-return-ck-141662 >> >> My gut feeling is that there has to be a better way. >> >> CouchDb appears to be a perfect fit for our needs except that we don't want >> to keep years and years of old data that non-one is interested in. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Antoine Pitrou [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 8:15 p.m. >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Is this use case correct for Couchdb >> >> Le Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:59:07 +0000, >> Richard Schmidt >> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> Thanks for that - is sounds like CouchDb is not a good solution. >>> >>> Can you recommend a Nosql db that is a better fit? >> >> Why do you want a NoSQL database exactly? >> >> >
