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 Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
