> On 8 Feb 2018, at 17:22, Geoffrey Cox <redge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I figured that having multiple shard
> keys per doc would be a big change, but I was hoping I was wrong ;). I
> still think your proposed solution will add a lot of value to CouchDB.
> Unfortunately, it isn't going to be part of the silver bullet that makes it
> feasible to step away from db-per-user in many cases as in the end you need
> shards/partitions that correspond with your user's queries or else it will
> require visiting each shard when a query is issued, something that wouldn't
> be very scalable with a very large database with lots of nodes.
> In my mind, either the database has to "replicate" the data to the right
> shards/partitions or you have to do this manually.

I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere here. In terms of query, it should 
totally allow moving away from db-per-user -- db-per-user is essentially the 
same as a shard key being the user name (with the caveat that the direct 
equivalent is that number of shards per user database is 1, which places 
limitations on the amount of data per user to the amount 1 shard can hold).


Reply via email to