Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of itaborai83@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.221 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=LXtFH0yZLkdnLcpN3RJa4Y15GN4Hnb8saM3v2YwInN0ywQsjszf23urJIjzdGprRxA
         8wWe46tmiyRYz0bydRdjgFHRm8P1+Ajhuy0c0iGtSyuvAz0TGdzcM7zQOlDh9PU/QgQy
         bKaoRNSv1ZXEsTtfQLzmsXg+V2atvZLfRjBr0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d9b6453f1003291539h50b48fbej624e9e30f047c709@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f39928a61003271656pc4dac64k8af7d06575af7b15@mail.gmail.com>
	 <91076E76-9FAB-4590-82E2-9B14563882F0@gmail.com>
	 <f39928a61003271712n4969491dkee1d3ed9543aa710@mail.gmail.com>
	 <A204A077-4405-490F-A916-62013DE64B5F@apache.org>
	 <f39928a61003272041m31be57a3ncee7e9cb696a78b8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <db40ee831003290906y156162e6p172f1317e1ace064@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d9b6453f1003291539h50b48fbej624e9e30f047c709@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:35:56 -0300
Message-ID: <db40ee831003291635y397f7683jd5269b6a1baeb91f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Validate uniqueness field
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Itabora=ED?= <itaborai83@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8a55608a69770482f8f988

--00c09f8a55608a69770482f8f988
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks.

I'm such a noobie!

Daniel

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick@gmail.com> wrote:

> To nitpick slightly - you won't get a value of zero, you'll just find tha=
t
> there is no entry for the given key. ;-)
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 30/03/2010 3:06 AM, "Daniel Itabora=ED" <itaborai83@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Distributed uniqueness is a hard problem, but since you intend to use it
> only on a single node, perhaps you should create a view for each set of
> fields that you intend to be unique in your documents.You would emit the
> unique combination of values as the key and the document id as the value.
> For the reduce function, you should just count the number of documents th=
at
> hold that particular key.
>
> Prior to each PUT or POST on a document, you should query the view to mak=
e
> sure that no other document has used that specific combination of values
> (the reduced value should be 0). Also, after each PUT or POST, you=B4d ha=
ve
> to
> query it again to see if the uniqueness still holds (the reduced value
> should be 1).
>
> If the probability of two or more writers issuing operations that might
> violate the uniqueness constraint is low enough, you might be able to get
> away with it. This, of course, has a race condition (aside from also bein=
g
> slow, ugly and discouraged). You would have to periodically handle
> uniqueness violations either automatically or manually.
>
> I think you should ask yourself first what=B4s the worst that could happe=
n
> when a violation of a uniqueness constraint happens. Sometimes you can ju=
st
> work around it.
>
>
> regards,
> Daniel Itabora=ED
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM, faust 1111 <faust451@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why too documents?
> > Bu...
>

--00c09f8a55608a69770482f8f988--