this statement tempted me to jump in, even without using something like dynamic field creation myself __right now__. But I have been - especially on cms like projects badly in need for dynamic fields.
That something isn't common in sql doesn't mean that there is no need for this "something". This limitation of sql is the reason for doing things like storing xml in relational dbs as well as the reason for people using object dbs. I don't know if you had a look at dabble db, but imagine something like this with a relational dbms. not funny! Because of this they haven't even thought about using sql for dabble db. So maybe it's just me but the argument: you can't do this in sql either doesn't sound too convincing...
Cheers,
Jan
On 6/6/06, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Lee Marlow wrote:
> Do you mean that all fields would have to be known at index creation
> time or just that once a field is defined it properties are the same
> across all documents? Right now I'm indexing documents that create
> new fields as needed based on user defined properties, so we don't
> know all the fields initially.
How would you handle this if you were using an SQL database rather
than Ferret? Your app wouldn't be able to modify the table on the
fly on that case, unless you did something insane like run a remote
"ALTER TABLE" command.
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
_______________________________________________
Ferret-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ferret-talk
_______________________________________________ Ferret-talk mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ferret-talk
