Eric, Implementation isn't a problem, but I would fear that replication could screw views up. As in, your views would depend on the order of document modification which could be impacted quite heavily by replication etc.
Paul On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, eric casteleijn <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there any reason not to expose sequence numbers to any view other than > '_all_docs_by_seq'? I find myself wishing I had access to them again and > again. > > A simple use case is to be able to query for documents of a particular type > that were last updated within a range of sequence numbers. Currently I can > only do this if I have separate databases for each type, or id prefixes, so > that I can filter out the ids I don't want out of the views results that > way. > > If I could build by own view that was able to emit the sequence number as a > key, that would make things much more pleasant. > > Are there compelling reasons against a patch that would make this possible? > For instance, would it introduce efficiency penalties to those not using > sequence numbers, or would it just be a very hard thing to implement? > > -- > - eric casteleijn > http://www.canonical.com >
