[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-465?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12745356#action_12745356
]
Antony Blakey commented on COUCHDB-465:
---------------------------------------
I remember a discussion about assigning a UUID to a database to allow external
view providesr to more reliably associate indexing artifacts with a given db
instance (given that names can be duplicated over a create/delete/create
boundary). I suggested that this could be used in document ids (and revids) and
the response was that this was a privacy risk because the originating
database's identity would leak into the peer group. It seems that this proposal
has the same characteristic because you can identify the common source of a set
of documents. Is this no longer a concern? If not, then how about revisiting
the idea of assigning each database a UUID on creation, and using that UUID as
a document identity prefix?
> Produce sequential, but unique, document id's
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-465
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-465
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Robert Newson
> Attachments: couch_uuids.patch, uuid_generator.patch
>
>
> Currently, if the client does not specify an id (POST'ing a single document
> or using _bulk_docs) a random 16 byte value is created. This kind of key is
> particularly brutal on b+tree updates and the append-only nature of couchdb
> files.
> Attached is a patch to change this to a two-part identifier. The first part
> is a random 12 byte value and the remainder is a counter. The random prefix
> is rerandomized when the counter reaches its maximum. The rollover in the
> patch is at 16 million but can obviously be changed. The upshot is that the
> b+tree is updated in a better fashion, which should lead to performance
> benefits.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
