Hi Noah,
On 6 Jan 2009, at 12:24, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:03:16PM +0100, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 6 Jan 2009, at 10:04, Christopher Lenz wrote:
This is really a matter of understanding the very basics of CouchDB,
so a simple RTFM is entirely appropriate in such cases IMO. And
maybe
changing the tone of the corresponding docs to more strongly and
obviously discourage the use of temp views in production code.
From the wiki:
"Temporary views are only good during development. Final code
should not rely on them as they are very expensive to compute
each time they get called and they get increasingly slower the
more data you have in a database. If you think you can't solve
something in a permanent view that you can solve in an ad-hoc
view, you might want to reconsider."
This suits your requirements for documentation yet has failed to
discourage their use.
And yet no one is proposing we remove MVCC, because misinterpreting
this for a
revision system is by far the biggest and most common mistake I have
seen. Sometimes I think you just have to provide the documentation
and point
people to it when they're banging their heads against the wall. I
mean, for the
problem I mentioned we have this:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Document_revisions
If the temporary views are such a problem, why don't we have:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Temporary_views
There is no mechanism in CouchDB that people should use "instead of
MVCC"
whereas in most cases people shouldn't use _temp_views at all and we
make
the case that we don't really need them at all. Why should we keep
them (other
than "because we have them")?
Cheers
Jan
--
