Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63027 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2010 08:13:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2010 08:13:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 26191 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2010 08:12:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 26010 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2010 08:12:47 -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 26000 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2010 08:12:46 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:12:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of manokaran@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.52] (HELO mail-pw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.160.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:12:38 +0000 Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so2333173pwi.11 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:12:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=B0QvX1xgKbGaPwmpLfFVhFhY57cE0TnQPU8xGTQxNUU=; b=cLq11QTzG2CuYHxng6wUbr6Mt7LL22G/yEfgUI0yXP7UqLOQ8AYDeC5/be5DSL+FE6 ymxiWWU8dpbhc2rcCaRDb5dj0wDNANcHePZsqkgsZkw1zCRpDUmBNsMpWvangp3r5hTZ u2NAPOJUS/unzn4E1Vg0flJ7ixjPWLiEa+vXs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=YHjHCAjNO9vd5EwZCYr2yfGuP6a3oDJYEoR1MnH2a2JV64et1E65iWf06LfKUtLIKm UwKzTdm0tPDBTtdyYMLiYSI44k595a+AcYiC1/EgOh4kl8bXgWbUAZEbhJd891Gw3ZaC 6468pBU2/+HqPr0DOJsvGePA3JJDFVT2uGIps= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.250.3 with SMTP id x3mr387864wfh.347.1267776737298; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:12:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:42:17 +0530 Message-ID: <7bf1bec51003050012xae84dcbk5825210876532a93@mail.gmail.com> Subject: couchdb view versus couchdb-lucene indexes From: Manokaran K To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636ed683514ccbb0481094674 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001636ed683514ccbb0481094674 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Since couchdb-lucene allows more complex queries of the database, what are the pros and cons of using couchdb 'view' to only emit(doc._id, null) and do all the querying on the couchdb-lucene index? Will it break the access control mechanism built into 0.11!! thanks, mano --001636ed683514ccbb0481094674--