On 09/04/2009, at 12:28 PM, Wout Mertens wrote:
Actually that's an interesting thought...
Let the db store whatever you give it. Attachments do not exist. If a
document is too large to store in the btree, it is stored as a blob
like attachments now.
That would allow you to e.g. create a view with all jpg files and
their resolution by plugging in an indexing framework for image/JPEG
type objects.
Also, couchdb gets to decide what should be a blob and what not. As
computers grow todays 4kb is tomorrows 4mb. Why should all attachments
be stored in files if small ones could sit in the db?
Treating attachments the same as all documents gives them the same
conflict protection etc.
Current large documents would benefit from the streaming code that
attachments get.
The current hierarchy that can be given by embedding / in attachment
names would be generalized to all documents.
I like it...
We are on the same page.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen F Roberts
