Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sean.copenhaver@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <loom.20110810T155344-118@post.gmane.org>
References: <4DDA388C.4010204@gmail.com>
	<loom.20110810T155344-118@post.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:56:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAPmACT7tcPwjSvmonQCA_mTg=nZ6hDxrTT6s4n9KvtK67bCRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Merging many DataBases into one
From: Sean Copenhaver <sean.copenhaver@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501628506efd104aa27e42d

--bcaec501628506efd104aa27e42d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sounds like the same ids are in use in both shards. If conflicts occur
during replication a "winner" is picked deterministically by CouchDB.
Something like whoever has the higher revision hash.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Iako <jim@commonaccord.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I tried to merge two shards and each time one overrides the other.
> So, though the target database shows that is as large as the two
> source databases, it shows only the number of documents of one of
> the source databases (the order of replicating does not change
> which one -- one seems to be dominant).
>
> Any suggestions would be very welcome.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>


--=20
=93The limits of language are the limits of one's world. =93 -Ludwig von
Wittgenstein

--bcaec501628506efd104aa27e42d--