incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Hendricks <mich...@ndrix.org>
Subject Re: The state of the fulltext search
Date Sun, 11 May 2008 01:37:10 GMT
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 08:56:10PM +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> I think we should move here from plaintext to JSON as well to gain a
> bit more flexibility. The basic idea is that this mechanism is good
> for  any kind of indexing, not just fulltext. A friend of mine is
> already working on  geo- searching with this interface[2]. (In this
> light, I propose drop the  "fulltext" or "ft" label from the source
> for clarification).

I really like both ideas: JSON protocol format and describing the
indexing features in more general terms.  I can imagine some uses of the
indexing feature that go beyond full text searches.

> Chunks:
> {"ok":"true"}\n (or {"error":"reason"`}\n\n)
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"}\n
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"}\n
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"}\n
> ...
> \n
> 
> Huge:
> {"ok":"true", result: [
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"},
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"},
> {"id":"docid", "score":"score"},
> ]}\n
> \n

Perhaps I misunderstood the proposal.  Is it necessary to support both
response formats?  It seems to me that anything that could be reported
in the "Huge" format could also be reported in the "Chunks" format.
So implementing the "Chunks" format is all that's necessary.

-- 
Michael

Mime
View raw message