On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > I had another thought yesterday that might be even simpler while being able > to maintain all current features. > > Instead of having: > > Row with rowId (DocumentCollection with docCollectionId) > Record with recordId (Document with docId) > - Dropping Family > Column with name and value (Field with name and value) > > We drop Row/DocumentCollection altogether and we don't require docId to be > unique. > > So it would be: > > Document with docId > Field with name and value > > And the new rule would be that wherever there are documents that share the > same document id, you get the same effects as the Row/DocumentCollection. > This would remove the need for multiple ids (rowId and recordId), and it > would be logically the same as normal Lucene. The difference that Blur > would add is the ability to join on documentId by default. We could also > configure the table to allow for duplicate document ids or not, that way > users can choose whether or not they need the document id join capability. > > What do you all think?
The idea of getting rid of the "container" as a first class construct is compelling. I don't find grouping by docid intuitive. Maybe leave docid as a user field - typically distinct - and use a docGroupId to bind them? --tim
