From dev-return-49322-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@couchdb.apache.org Mon May 4 16:57:50 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 180A2180608 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:57:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 617 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2020 16:57:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 605 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2020 16:57:49 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) (10.10.3.159) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:57:49 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.6] (business-90-187-221-197.pool2.vodafone-ip.de [90.187.221.197]) by mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id AEF948266 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:57:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Lehnardt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] length restrictions in 4.0 Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 18:57:46 +0200 References: To: dev@couchdb.apache.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <3C563404-E55E-4E70-B704-885A9B23B255@apache.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) Hey all, I=E2=80=99m very much in favour of sensible defaults for these values. = IMHO these should have existed for a long time now. These limitations put an upper boundary on how many databases and = documents can be stored in CouchDB, but I think at nice ~69^256 for = number of databases, we are on the safe side here. Best Jan =E2=80=94 > On 1. May 2020, at 20:36, Robert Samuel Newson = wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > There are other threads related to doc size (etc) limits for CouchDB = 4.0, motivated by restrictions in FoundationDB, but we haven't discussed = database name length and doc id length limits. These are encoded into = FoundationDB keys and so we would be wise to forcibly limit their length = from the start. >=20 > I propose 256 character limit for database name and 512 character = limit for doc ids. >=20 > If you can't uniquely identify your database or document within those = limits I argue that you're doing something wrong, and the limits here, = while making FDB happy, are an aid to sensible application design. >=20 > Does anyone want higher or lower limits? Comments pls. >=20 > B. >=20