couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: couch sequence numbers and _all_docs_by_seq
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:20:48 GMT
On Apr 29, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

> Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:08 AM, eric casteleijn wrote:
>>> Paul Davis wrote:
>>>> Eric,
>>>> Implementation isn't a problem, but I would fear that replication
>>>> could screw views up. As in, your views would depend on the order  
>>>> of
>>>> document modification which could be impacted quite heavily by
>>>> replication etc.
>>> Ah right, hadn't thought of that. So in a system using  
>>> replication, views that would use the sequence number as a key  
>>> would get a severe performance penalty? (Just checking to see if I  
>>> understand the implications.) That might be a good enough reason  
>>> not to expose this as a feature, lest people start depending on it  
>>> and saying CouchDb is slow as a result.
>>> If this is true, I suppose it also holds for the built in  
>>> _all_docs_by_seq view?
>> I'm not sure Paul's comment is performance-related, actually. I  
>> think he was more concerned that a view which incorporates  
>> update_seq could give different results on two servers that are  
>> using replication to stay synchronized with one another. Paul,  
>> correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
> Yep that's the issue. If you use the update sequence in your map  
> view then it violates those math words about same input means same  
> output. Because the update_sequence will change for every PUT etc,  
> and replication could give it an entirely different update_seq.
> A thought, you could look at _all_docs_by_seq and then use multi-get  
> against your view.
> HTH,
> Paul Davis

Ok, but just so we're on the same page, I think Eric was talking about  
using the update_seq for that document in the view (i.e., the key for  
that document in _all_docs_by_seq), not the server's latest  
update_seq.  I don't think that usage violates any requirements of the  
map function.


View raw message