couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Markus Jelsma" <>
Subject Re: cdb-lucene question (is there a better place for these?)
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:59:16 GMT
Hello Alex,

The first question that comes to mind is: do you really exceed the
so-called 2kb URL limit that at least some old version of IE force upon
you? But on the other hand, do you really expose the complete Lucene query
to the public? If not, then you can only stumble upon Erlang's limit or
the limit enforced by your proxy; Apache can handle at least a 8kb URL and
Nginx maybe even more.

Also, using a POST for searches is breaking HTTP's semantics; it would
make no sense using HTTP POST for retrieval or search operations and
therefore i for instance would argue against making a fork for something
that breaks with decent semantics.

Finally, even if you expose your query to the public (and therefore having
to conform the the limits of the weakest link; IE with about 2kb limit),
would you really build a search query using more than that many bytes?


Alex P zei:
> my current usage of cdb-lucene requires me to pass in fairly long
> queries, long enough that i think i might hit a url length limit sooner
> or later. are there  plans to support a keys-style POST operation? it
> would even be conceivable to submit an object graph rather than a string
> query, which would hopefully speed the parsing process (translate
> straight into a lucene query object, rather than parsing the other
> form).
> if not, this is something that i'll definitely pursue in a fork.
> apologies if there is a better place for this question.
> thanks,
> alex

View raw message