incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hahn <>
Subject Re: how do u handle "schema" changes ?
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:29:47 GMT
I never change old docs.  I just make sure my code can handle the old
versions.  So I have multiple schemas at once.  I don't see any reason to
go through and update the docs since the app does the same thing on the fly.

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Erik Pearson <> wrote:

> > i know it may sound self-contradictory for couchdb being schemaless ..
> >
> > but documents that go into it do have structure/schema.
> > And once that changes - simplest example being renaming of some field -
> > what's the recipe?
> > i know it all from the sql land, but this is different.
> >
> > update the documents ?
> > or make all code - both outside and inside couchdb (views etc) -
> > accept/handle both old and new?
> >
> > i guess the answer is "it depends", still, any suggestions?
> I think this is it -- there are so many use cases it is very difficult
> to generalize. E.g. one area I've struggled with is that large
> collections -- millions of documents -- introduce significant time
> constraints for rebuilding view indexes. Changing the "schema" of
> these documents is not really healthy for a live system. There are
> several strategies for dealing with just this one use case, and they
> depend on things like data usage patterns. I've also found that there
> are significant issues with dependencies between the document
> structure and other server or client software. These dependencies
> argue for modification off-line, and simultaneous launch of database,
> server, and client code.
> Still, I find that the flexibility of free-form documents, run-time
> availability of a system even under reindexing, and ease of
> replication and synchronization make the process of couchdb changes
> much more tolerable and maleable than sql relational databases.
> I don't have experience with json schema per se, but I have a feeling
> that something like it will be important to formalizing the process of
> document database integrity and evolution. It does seem a bit contrary
> in these early days of document databases to think of tying documents
> to scheme definitions (yuck, starts to be all xml-ish), but it does
> seem like a natural progression for both ensuring database longevity
> as well as other areas like data sharing and archiving.
> Cheers,
> Erik.
> >
> > ciao
> > svilen

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