couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stanley Iriele <siriele...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Considering CouchDB
Date Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:59:10 GMT
Idk..it sounds hackey.. But curl and crontab is good enough for me for the
views that can't fall more than 1 minute behind
On Nov 20, 2013 2:57 PM, "Robert Newson" <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:

> The bigcouch merge will not bring any automatic view updating
> scheduler. Nothing stops someone contributing one, of course.
>
> B.
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 22:49, Mike Marino <mmarino@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are, of course, ways to get couchdb to update views dependent on
> > writes. I also believe this is supposed to get easier in the future
> > (included in the bigcouch merge?).
> >
> >> Am 20.11.2013 um 23:46 schrieb Simon Metson <simon@cloudant.com>:
> >>
> >> Nope, views are updated on read, hence the "blocking" behaviour you
> describe. You can query with update_after, which returns the stale index
> then triggers the update.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 at 22:43, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I thought that every write triggered a view rebuild and that the stale
> >>> option only meant a read didn't have to wait for a current rebuild to
> >>> finish. That would means the views are pretty much up-to-date.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> True, but remember couchdb doesn't automatically keep indexes fresh
in
> >>>> the background, so "stale" can be "really really stale". ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> B.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 20 November 2013 22:34, Simon Metson <simon@cloudant.com>
wrote:
> >>>>> Unless your app can deal with querying the view stale.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 at 21:56, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I meant http view requests were blocked. It is waiting for the
view
> >>>>>> rebuild.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm can't type what I'm thinking today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Mark Hahn <mark@reevuit.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> never mind. I wasn't talking about the file level at all.
I meant
> that
> >>>>>>> http read requests are blocked after http update requests.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "DB reads are blocked by DB updates at the http level."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nope, there's a process that can read the database and
a separate
> >>>> one
> >>>>>>>> for writing to it. Writing to an append only file is
obviously
> >>>>>>>> serialized but there's no need to block reads.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 20 November 2013 21:35, Mark Hahn <mark@reevuit.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Database writes are not coupled to view updates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I understand now, you are talking about file read/write
level. DB
> >>>> reads
> >>>>>>>>> are blocked by DB updates at the http level.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Newson <
> >>>> robert.newson@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "A write requires updating views and reads have
to wait for the
> >>>> update"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is not true. Database writes are not coupled
to view updates.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 20:59, Mark Hahn <mark@reevuit.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A write requires updating views and reads
have
> >>>>>>>>>>> to wait for the update
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message