Thanks, Jeff:
I really appreciate your answer. The second option (separate buckets) looks
more effective for my pet project as I hope each post will have a lot of
comments.
Thanks again,
-- Buriwoy
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jeff Kirkell <jeff.kirk...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Buriwoy,
>
> I apologize in advance as I tend to write daily long replies. You have a
> couple options and I can provide some of the insight I have learned up till
> now but confusing answer is you can do both of what you wrote.
>
> You can have a bucket which is just called posts that also contains the
> comments or threads of comments (bad example as this could nest) like so
>
> {data : "'name':'My Blog Post', 'detail':'my long blog post information',
> 'comments': [{'from': 'someone', text:'test'}], {'from': 'someone else',
> 'text': 'more comments'} "}
>
> As long as you can format it, you can store it. In talking with people
> that deal with large amounts of data who are general NoSQL experts
> (Cassandra which is also a Dynamo derivative) they strongly push to not
> keep relationships in the same object. I will say that it really depends on
> what you are trying to do since, if you just have simple data, it is fine.
>
> The better approach is to have a separate bucket called "posts" and
> another called "comments" You can then use secondary indexes as an option
> to link the two together. Basically, you take the unique identifier of the
> post object and you make it a index header so you can get the comments
> based on the post object. With the comments bucket, I would probably just
> store the chain of comments together so if someone replies the a comment,
> all that goes into the actual comment's object instead of having to manage
> some form of hierarchy data.
>
> At the end of the day I basically built a solution that uses both of your
> original options at the same time.
>
> Hopefully that provides some insight into the flexibility.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Buri Arslon <buri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have another crazy idea :) What if I create a bucket for each blog's
>> comments? So, riak/blog_bucket/blog_01 and comments go to
>> riak/blog_01_comments?
>>
>> Any ideas?
>> -- Buriwoy
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Buri Arslon <buri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm very new to NoSQL/KV database systems. Sean's webinar "Schema Design
>>> for Riak" http://vimeo.com/17604126 gave me some idea about how to move
>>> to kv database, but I feel I need some more advice/docs to fully grasp this
>>> new concept for me.
>>>
>>> I was thinking about developing a blog application using Riak. Which
>>> schema would be most effective for that kind of application (regular blog:
>>> content + comments):
>>>
>>> bucket_blogs -> blog content;
>>> bucket_blogs_comments -> comments for the blogs in the bucket_blogs
>>>
>>> or,
>>>
>>> bucket_blogs -> JSON("blog": <<blog content>>, "comments":
>>> <<comments>>)?
>>>
>>> The second option seems less effective if number of comments grow
>>> significantly. But I'm not sure. Any hints? Ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -- Buriwoy
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> riak-users mailing list
>> riak-users@lists.basho.com
>> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
