Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 17080 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2009 06:52:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Jan 2009 06:52:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 88226 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jan 2009 06:51:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 88194 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jan 2009 06:51:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 88183 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jan 2009 06:51:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:51:58 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.189 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.170.189] (HELO rn-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.170.189) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:51:50 +0000 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k50so348529rnd.3 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:51:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=5yMciofdobNlZRaHadban0NNFq0VbyPmELl7ZB0gdxY=; b=SGqONvI8nyAEprkS+ccEtziNX2huiqDZfzSy9oR/VkvJ4VE5cE/Gytm3WsO4pdOa+1 nRlZQ6s1C+A52Nmjk+JuwNMAL4cDnVSM+NOiGxNR3HetDBBlrPPltxdUhVUNf80fN8r3 dIGe3Y5GCVcVA+83SvOaG7Lqb1+JWHrkDmCKg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Gqw5FxZOq7Lxi0BMUh9M5pZEi5t0P63m+BO2fJXjBjpIYmvNWF76OaSeOybzRWwUlX UjGQHOmyG8SJmdD6QTl1A+PD9HK+FkXK34tChsqMVj8apXR8/AzuQfEa6tLChBCT2uV3 4gwenqd6a+36FF7y7nkPuT+V6AonJfpTNCWKI= Received: by 10.65.81.16 with SMTP id i16mr5658026qbl.120.1231915889121; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.158.2 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:51:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:51:29 -0800 From: "Chris Anderson" To: user@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: Can I guarantee uniqueness in a field without using _id? In-Reply-To: <518815b70901131842u5ad900c6gcc5e97dd73a936a3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <518815b70901111530o23f6ce31yb40f974ea85467c0@mail.gmail.com> <791F7A73-DB3B-4822-8D93-A904802A427A@gmail.com> <482703BB-BBA1-4565-BF8A-2CAFCA190001@gmail.com> <518815b70901131842u5ad900c6gcc5e97dd73a936a3@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Sunny Hirai wrote: > Ara.T.Howard and Antony Blakey: > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Hmm, this idea is interesting assuming that CouchDB will enforce the > uniqueness per database (see earlier post I made). CouchDB will enforce unique docids within a database on a single node. In the long run, we may also support partitioning a single database across many nodes. In that case, we should also support uniqueness constraints with a single logical database. So should your name server get too busy for one box, Couch should support spreading the load across a cluster of boxes. > > I think I will consider this. > > In-ter-esting. > > Sunny > -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com