incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reworking the data model
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:45:21 GMT
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had another thought yesterday that might be even simpler while being able
> to maintain all current features.
>
> Instead of having:
>
> Row with rowId (DocumentCollection with docCollectionId)
> Record with recordId (Document with docId)
>    - Dropping Family
> Column with name and value (Field with name and value)
>
> We drop Row/DocumentCollection altogether and we don't require docId to be
> unique.
>
> So it would be:
>
> Document with docId
> Field with name and value
>
> And the new rule would be that wherever there are documents that share the
> same document id, you get the same effects as the Row/DocumentCollection.
>  This would remove the need for multiple ids (rowId and recordId), and it
> would be logically the same as normal Lucene.  The difference that Blur
> would add is the ability to join on documentId by default.  We could also
> configure the table to allow for duplicate document ids or not, that way
> users can choose whether or not they need the document id join capability.
>
> What do you all think?

The idea of getting rid of the "container" as a first class construct
is compelling.  I don't find grouping by docid intuitive.  Maybe leave
docid as a user field - typically distinct - and use a docGroupId to
bind them?

--tim

Mime
View raw message