Thanks for the feedback. For now I will proceed with getting the _local fixes then. Then we can look at a performant way of doing the md5 for regular docs.
Cheers Garren On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > The original patch from garren calculated the md5(body) at query time. > This was fine for just local docs since fetching then is rare. > > I'm +1 on the proposal and agree we need to precalculate the etag for > regular docs. > > > On 8 Apr 2016, at 19:01, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Mutton, James <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is the proposal to calculate and store the md5 as a meta field, or to > calculate md5(_rev, body) at request time? Doing this at request time > would be very expensive for heavily loaded servers. > > > > Good point and concern. This is not a new meta field, just a Etag > > header value. And obliviously, there should be the way to not generate > > Etag value if it eventually the same as the _rev field value (I think > > it's good idea to let them share the same algo). Technically, this > > could be done by looking on what kind of edit happened: interactive or > > not. > > > > -- > > ,,,^..^,,, > >
