On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Hans Hübner <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the concrete architectural advice! It does not seem to be very > bothersome to follow that route, so we will certainly trust you in that it is > better than using MVCC timestamps. > > Let me suggest again that the "Time Travel" section in the "Inside Marklogic" > document and the section on point-in-time queries in the "Application > Developers Guide" be updated to include information on the caveats that you > and your colleagues have expressed. I'm still a bit puzzled by the vehemence > that you all put forth into discouraging us from using it. Are there any > other advertised features that can affect the health of a database in a > similar way and should thus be avoided?
After reading Justin's follow up, I think you'll agree there's no need to update the IMLS section? The main reason not to use PIT for versioning is it can't answer a simple question like, "What was the previous version of this document?" You can only ask, "What was the version of this document at time X?" There's lot of good uses for PIT (locking in a view of the database for repeated use, going back to a point before a user made a mess of things, etc) but it's not a good fit for individual document versioning. -jh- _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] Manage your subscription at: http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
