On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 04:25:13PM -0500, Zachary Zolton wrote: > So, another +1 for chainable map-reduce...? (-_^)
And +1 from me too. I am completely ignorant of Erlang and the CouchDB internals, but why is map/reduce output (all the view docs I see in the directory as .whatever files) any different than regular CouchDB databases? It seems logical that the same tools that apply to a CouchDB database should apply to view files as well, so one can map/reduce against view without having to manually convert it back from view results into another CouchDB database. Cheers, James Marca > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Benoit Chesneau<[email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/6/10 Chris Anderson <[email protected]>: > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> It looks like you are building up a hash of scores in your reduce. Can > >> you get the same results by keeping the reduce ignorant of keys, and > >> just calculating the score for whatever keys are in the range. Then > >> you can use a group query and sort by value on the client. > >> > >> Anything involving relative popularity of certain items will have a > >> sorting phase outside of CouchDB's first pass of map reduce. > >> > > > > hi, thanks for the feedback. I think you mean somethink like this : > > http://www.friendpaste.com/4cIo2tzKA3epiwLkwPsolA > > > > It works yes, but now I need a second phase to invert values/keys and > > get them in right order. In fact having the possibility to save resukt > > of first reduce in temporary docs and mapping them to a new result > > could be a solution. > > > > - benoît > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
