4 ms·
I don't see why there would be a fundamental reason why there would be an attachment size limit. I guess it would just need to be implemented by breaking the at
by kevincox 5y ago
I don't see why there would be a fundamental reason why there would be an attachment size limit. I guess it would just need to be implemented by breaking the attachment into multiple keys? There may be some overhead but it seems that this is valuable because it allows large attachments to be split across servers as required.
- tlarkworthy 5y agoWhen you chunk it you have problems about what happens if that process is interrupted. So it's not trivial (though solvable) but it's the kind of atomics you want the new engine to do.
- aseipp 5y agoI think the person you're replying to is saying that the document should be split across keys inside the implementation, i.e. split across the fdb keyspace, not split by the user at the application level. Which is the approach you mostly always have to use for 'large' values; FoundationDB has size limitations on the k/v pairs it can accept and splitting documents and writing those chunks in small transactional batches is the recommended workaround (along with some other 'switch over' transactional write which makes the complete document visible all at once.)
- tehbeard 5y agoIf I remember the fdb docs, there's also a time limit on transactions that further limits the feasible max size.