On 18 juil, 16:22, David M <
da...@boxedice.com> wrote:
> When I call remove() then it's blocking reads from the entire
> database. Since I have a lot of data that is being remove()'d then
> that is taking a long time and so reads are being blocked for a long
> time.
>
> I have looked at capped collections but the data size is not constant
> and not predictable. We have to keep data for x days and then we
> remove it, and this is dependent upon the type of account the user has
> (which may change). We are also keeping high sample rate data which is
> processed and then removed every hour.
>
> On Jul 18, 2:50 pm, Eliot Horowitz <
eliothorow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did you mean blocking for remove() instead of blocking for reads()?
> > We are going to be working on this in the near future, but its not
> > going to be a super quick fix.
>
> > Have you though about using capped collections? You can make a huge
> > capped collection, or as much disk space as you want to use on this,
> > and then just never have to remove()
>
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:18 AM, David M<
da...@boxedice.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think it's taking too long, it's just that I'm removing a lot
> > > of data very often (every hour). Blocking the entire DB for reads is
> > > not good because it stops our entire service from working. Even
> > > collection level blocking isn't great because we need to read from
> > > them at least every 60 seconds.
>
> > > This is perhaps the most critical issue (and only) we have now with