From user-return-14046-apmail-couchdb-user-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Thu Dec 02 23:57:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20415 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2010 23:57:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2010 23:57:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 59887 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2010 23:57:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 59755 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2010 23:57:36 -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 59747 invoked by uid 99); 2 Dec 2010 23:57:36 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:57:36 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.54] (HELO mail-ww0-f54.google.com) (74.125.82.54) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:57:30 +0000 Received: by wwb31 with SMTP id 31so7417275wwb.23 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:57:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.155.145 with SMTP id s17mr1059135wbw.64.1291334227022; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.28.69 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:57:06 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [156.33.195.149] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:57:06 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Map/Reduce Question From: Matthew Woodward To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c18dce354470496762d08 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0016e64c18dce354470496762d08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Randall Leeds wrote: > I think you may want to play w the ?group_level query parameter. > Thanks--messed with that but since my keys weren't unique across records it didn't seem to make a difference. I'll look back into that though. -- Matthew Woodward matt@mattwoodward.com http://blog.mattwoodward.com identi.ca / Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --0016e64c18dce354470496762d08--