incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reworking the data model
Date Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:29:03 GMT
Overall I think this is a good idea.  The number of times I've had to
explain what a Row and Record is and how it compares to Documents in Lucene
tells me that we need a change.  This is a big change so I would really
like to hear other people's opinions on this, pro or against.  Thank!

Aaron


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Devs,
> I'm wondering if we should go ahead and endure the [painful] move to a
> more intuitive data model in Blur?  Here are some observations:
>
> 1) New folks coming to Blur have a background in Lucene - not
> necessarily a NoSQL data store - and want to know where their
> "Documents" are.
>
> 2) For folks aware of NoSQL stores, the Row/Record model can be
> misleading in terms of design tradeoffs.
>
> 3) The Row/Record model seems to bring a significant explanation burden.
>
> In the past we've talked about a model that's more aligned with
> Lucene's Document's.  Aaron did some api work on a branch a while back
> and it's come up in an issue again recently.
>
> So, I'm wondering if now is the time to just endure some shortish
> period of pain changing everything over now?  The idea being something
> like:
>
> Row -> DocGroup
> Record -> Document
> Column -> Field
> Family -> (dropped)
>
> I think this will alleviate some confusion and provide a solid
> foundation for the long term; enabling a shorter learning curve and
> less confusion.
>
> Such a big change would be good to get done while we're still a
> small-ish community but I think it's important that everyone is on
> board - as it will no doubt create lots of short term chaos and
> confusion...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> --tim
>

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