On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:53:14AM -0500, Zachary Zolton wrote: > (1) people who are storing large documents in CouchDB but not indexing them > at all (I guess this is possible, e.g. if the doc ids are well-known or > stored in other documents, but this isn't the most common way of working)
The proposal would exclude a document from *all* views in a particular design doc. So you're only going to get a benefit from this if you have a large number of documents (or a number of large documents) which are not required to be indexed in any view in that design doc. > I do agree, though, that only being able to filter at the design doc > level limits the utility of view filtering. And it's reasonable, given that (as I understand it) each document is already only passed once to the view server, in order to be indexed by all the views in that design document. > Given that a design doc is > supposed to be an application's "view" of the database, would we want > to encourage folks to make a different design doc for each type of > data they store in the database? My gut says "one design doc per > application" —but I could be all mixed up! I have been ending up with views which run across *all* the documents in a database - for example, a generic "search" box which lets the user type in a search term and hit any matching type of object. Having a single design document holding all my views means that each document only needs to be sent once to the view server. Regards, Brian.
