Well that was it. I guess the compaction via the _utils UI simply was never working. After triggering it with curl, the DB size came down 10x and is now equal (actually slightly less than, due to compression, I suppose) the document size.
Thanks! On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps try triggering the compaction directly from the API with curl? > > http://docs.couchdb.org/en/1.6.1/api/database/compact.html > > Adam > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Travis Downs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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. > >>> > >> > > > >
