On 19 Nov 2009, at 02:16, Li Zhengji wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> We already do this -- if two views in a design document have byte-identical >> map functions, the map is only run once, the index is only saved once, and >> the different reduce functions share that index. > > I realized that it might be hard to cache results of reduce, so > multiple reduce is hard to do. > > But for the binary compare of map functions, I don't think it's a > good idea. Maybe, we can use a special field to say that we are > sharing the same map function of another view.
Why is the current implementation not a good idea? It works well :) Cheers Jan --
