Database compaction should absolutely recover that space. Can you share a few more details? Are you sure the compaction completes successfully? Cheers,
Adam > On Jun 29, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Travis Downs <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have an issue where I'm posting single smallish (~500 bytes) > documents to couchdb, yet the DB size is about 10x larger than > expected (i.e., 10x larger than the aggregate size of the documents). > > Documents are not deleted or modified after posting. > > It seems like what is happening is that every individual (unbatched > write) always takes 4K due to the nature of the append-only algorithm > writing 2 x 2K blocks for each modification as documented here: > > http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/btree.html > > OK, that's fine. What I don't understand is why the "compact" > operation doesn't recover this space? > > I do recover the space if I replicate this DB somewhere else. The full > copy takes about 10x less space. I would expect replicate to be able > to do the same thing in place. Is there some option I'm missing? > > Note that I cannot use bulk writes since the documents are posted one > by one by different clients. >
