Hi, I do not quite understand why so much fuzz on something which is clearly not CouchDB fault. Maybe someone is able explain to me (maybe I am too slow for such high level subject).
What I don't understand is the followings: 1. Those guys wanted a single front-end server which should keep up with the incoming requests, correct? As far as I understood, CouchDB philosophy is based on safety of the data, which was implemented as direct writes on harddisk. So, having only one front-end server on which you force its hdd to to keep up with the high speed internet connection is just like you want to force a river to flow only through a mouse hole. I have problems in understanding how this can happen. Does anyone know? 2. How can you implement NoSQL on an SQL product? Is like curving an apple in a shape of banana and sell it as such. Am I missing anything here? 3. If MySQL is the future, then how come many service providers with a lot of users moved to NoSQL? Yes, there may be some points where CouchDB doesn't excel, but before choosing a product, you take a look at what it offers, you don't buy the box without looking what's inside, I suppose. Otherwise, it seems that person doesn't know what happend to Pandora. So, in the end, what matters is how this product will go on, not what some think of. A word for devs: keep up with the good work! Cheers, CGS On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > More comments here: > > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3954596 > > Not sure how useful they are... > > (Not caught up with the thread yet, sorry!) > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > We're veering off-topic here, but there are several remaining issues. > > > First is that the view file is at some update_seq relative to the > > > database file. Being at update_seq N for a view means it has all the > > > changes up to and including N, but nothing after N, so while those > > > updates could be processed in parallel, they'd have to be applied to > > > the view process and view file in order. > > > > Yeah, you'd have to serialize and buffer when writing to disk again. > > > > > Secondly, and more > > > importantly, is how to handle rows that, for whatever reason, cause an > > > exception when evaluated in the function (e.g, the common case where > > > there's an undefined property and no guard clause). If the order is > > > not determined, then two database, with the same data and same view > > > code, will have different view results for the same input. > > > > I'm actually not clear on what happens with erroring view functions. > > Does it just stop processing any further document revisions? > > > > In any case, it seems okayish to do have the document updates be in a > > defined ordering but parallellize execution of the view function, then > > serialize back into document order when the results come back, doing a > > little buffering if the results aren't in order. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dirkjan > > >
