Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A676E10940 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:52:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97802 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2014 07:52:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 97178 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2014 07:52:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 97168 invoked by uid 99); 10 Mar 2014 07:52:15 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:52:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bcitrin@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.181 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.181] (HELO mail-pd0-f181.google.com) (209.85.192.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:52:08 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p10so6704848pdj.12 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:51:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=D8Hx9xX2tgvqtUR0p5qSxKIc/Oz9mOcEESOwIdJkRdU=; b=VS9oFagjkFZvZu8AajsHguv9HH/KjRih1v4QR4skDBib2dhwZ8cfQaFOffLgs52mi6 DRtjTOeMZr8mVtAuTV5u7An1f2JPaTMdqT9twMzVJjxWI56ZCaGIxyVAOAxLPkjFJ6LD cszjT47XVbknf0PIRPtlY9SABNdxkO0Zqgee0DrvaSmch7BL7NRV1OeUEZ+e+CE0Kz+u upq35/qQnCYPnz6pa76XdUxNfa5sPmFxLzCsTbcdqO1FcOp10UUEql3osf3BJMn456L2 c4/ZSlQNOfq+QykBA8HV4VBZWtc9qRgOA7PwM6Y73E06OEy3Bp4gYfgx1DF3InpkFpL8 I10Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.58.34 with SMTP id n2mr12922565pbq.122.1394437907314; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.85.136 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:51:47 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: When to favor Couchdb views over Couchdb-Lucene indexes From: Boaz Citrin To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec544eeca207d2a04f43be004 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec544eeca207d2a04f43be004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, We have been using for a while both Couchdb views, and C-L indexing. Seems like the latter gives us anything we need, as long as we don't need any map/reduce functionality, plus the size is much smaller and no compaction overhead. The question is if there are other reasons to favor the native Couchdb views. Thanks, Boaz --bcaec544eeca207d2a04f43be004--