Hi Alexander, Yes, I have some numbers, do you want me to share here or somewhere else?
Best, Boaz On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Boaz! > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Boaz Citrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Testing database compaction with various doc_buffer_size values I get > > completely different results. > > Documentation is fairly vague, so I wonder how to choose the right value; > > What parameters affect this - HD buffer size, average doc size, > > database size, fragmentation, etc... ?! > > > > Same goes for view compaction and keyvalue_buffer_size. > > These parameters does affect on what they are named: they defines > buffer size for copying data from db/view file to the .compact one. > What information you think is missed? > > > (For me the the compaction with default values was many times slower > > than with the values that gave the faster compaction). > > All numbers have their cost: large buffers requires more memory while > they reduces I/O operations and vice versa. Much likely, that default > values wouldn't provide you high performance since they aimed to fit > everyone, but that's why you may tweak them for your needs (: > > I believe, that it's possible to revise them, but first need to > collect information in what environment which values are effective and > which are not. Would you like to help us with that? > > > -- > ,,,^..^,,, >
