On 12.07.2018 15:20, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 12 July 2018 at 13:13, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: >> I'm well aware why RSM allows inexact results. That is not what this PR >> is about. >> >> I simply think it is an oversight that RSM does not signal if the >> results are exact or not. > > Then I think you didn't quite consider my points?
I hope I did, sorry if not. It appears you consider two concepts the same which I don't consider to be equal: - Returning the exact result at the point in time, versus returning just an approximation. - The possibility that the data changes in the future. > The count can change at any time. So it may have been exact at the > time of the query, but even by the time the client receives the count > across the wire that count could be incorrect. What use is it for the > client to know that the count was "exact" at some unknown point in > recent history? Possibly not much for those cases. But there are cases where it comes in useful for the client to know that the numbers are exact: For example when syncing data. C: How many entries are between X and Y? S: Exactly 500. C: Great that is my view of the data too and I know that the entries between X and Y can not change, hence I know that my data is in sync. vs. C: How many entries are between X and Y? S: Approximate 500. Now C sees that the information is useless even if it also has 500 entries between X and Y, because the count given by S is (possibly) approximate. So C goes home dealing with his grief (probably with the help of a bottle scotch). - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
