On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, maybe premature optimization, but the indexer could run a JS function > over the doc and treat the result like a view result. Yes, this is > duplicating a bit of the work that views do, but it saves storing one copy > of the data. >
I thought about this as well. I was mostly concerned with the extra code complexity and dependencies this might add. Especially seeing as that it's already baked into couchdb. Patches definitely welcome though. :D Paul > Cheers > Jan > -- > > On 18.01.2009, at 20:31, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The reason that I don't try and index the entire DB is because of the >> arbitrary structure to JSON. Indexing a value that isn't a string >> leads to a whole lot of questions with no good answers. By indexing a >> view I let people pick exactly which parts of their db they want >> indexed. >> >> If some can dream up a structured indexing that doesn't suck, I'd be >> glad to take a look. But after all the playing I've done with it I >> just don't really see the structured stuff as being useful. >> >> HTH, >> Paul Davis >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, but in case I just want to index the entire DB I don't want to >>> have another index with a copy of all my data. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >>> On 18 Jan 2009, at 19:29, Justin Cormack wrote: >>> >>>> You can just make a view with everything in if you want to index the >>>> entire >>>> DB. >>>> >>>> Indexing views is much more flexible. >>>> >>>> Justin >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> One thing I noticed (which is different from my original >>>>> implementation) >>>>> that you do not index databases but only views, is that correct? I'm >>>>> not >>>>> sure if it matters, but I do see the case for "meh just index the >>>>> entire >>>>> database". Is this a planned feature? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Jan >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Paul Davis >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Paul Davis >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Darrin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> action2 went away because _external is now in trunk. My >>>>>>> couchdb-lucene >>>>>>> branch is still there and I've put it on the schedule to bring into >>>>>>> conformance with the very slightly altered trunk version (trunk >>>>>>> includes more info in the line API). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moving forward you can pull a copy of the couchdb-lucene stuff and >>>>>>> hack on it to get it working or wait for me to get to it this >>>>>>> weekend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HTH, >>>>>>> Paul Davis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Darrin Wortlehock >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In late November I was working with davisp's couchdb-lucene, which >>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>> jchris' action2 branch to work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am now returning to the development I was doing, building a new >>>>>>>> development environment from scratch and it appears that jchris' >>>>>>>> action2 >>>>>>>> branch has now gone away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am specifically interested in lucene integration. Can anybody >>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> hints on how to move forward? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Darrin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >
