I ran compaction via the button in _utils. I did notice that when I clicked the button, the spinner in the UI never stops, but I did check that compact_running was "false" for the DB in question - so I assumed it finished. I suppose some issue with _utils could instead mean it never started? Is there some way to distinguish the two cases?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >
