3 ms·
Exactly, almost all the time you would be better to save the attachment to an object store. However I think I found that small edge case where the attachment sy
by samwillis 5y ago
Exactly, almost all the time you would be better to save the attachment to an object store. However I think I found that small edge case where the attachment system was perfect. It was essential to save the binary Yjs doc with the couch document, it needed to be synced to clients with the main document. Saving it to an object store is not viable due to the overhead during syncing.
- robertnewson 5y agoyup. the purpose of couchdb's original attachment support was for "couchapps". The notion that you'd serve your entire application from couchdb. Attachments were therefore for html, javascript, image, font assets, which are all relatively small. The attachment support in CouchDB <= 3.x is a bit more capable than that due to its implementation, but storing large binaries was not strictly a goal of the project.