Drat... What's that release date for 0.10, again...!? (^_-)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Adam Kocoloski<[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Chris Anderson wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Zachary >> Zolton<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Argh... accidentally hit "send" too soon~!! >>> >>> Awesome, but since I'm still using 0.9 in production, I'll need to do >>> something else in the meantime. >>> >>> Will stale=ok queries remain performant during the re-indexing imposed >>> by pushing an updated design document? >>> >>> If that's gonna work for me, I'll probably change my deployment >>> strategy to the following: >>> 1) flip the "latency" switch on, in a admin page >>> 2) now all queries use stale=ok >>> 3) push our new design documents >>> 4) "prime" a view for each design document >>> 5) somehow know when the indexing has finished >>> 6) flip the "latency" switch off >>> 7) now queries should go to the freshly-built indexes! >>> >>> Does anyone see glaring problems with this approach? >>> >> >> You can simplify: >> >> users hitting _design/foo/_view/bar >> >> upload new ddoc to _design/fooX >> >> query view at _design/fooX/_view/bar once to trigger generation >> >> when it's done, http COPY _design/fooX to _design/foo >> >> users querying _design/foo/_view/bar should never see downtime >> >> (let me know if this works it's based on a new feature I just added) > > But Zach's looking for something that works in 0.9. And Zach, I'm afraid > your plan won't work there. In my experience your stale=ok queries will > return 0 rows after you upload the new design doc. Best, > > Adam > >
