On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Michael Ludwig <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew Melo schrieb am 09.04.2010 um 14:24:24 (-0500) > [Re: About denormalization and keep consistent]: > >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM, faust 1111 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Author changes their profile document. >> > >> >>Something listening to the _changes feed notices this. >> > >> >>It starts a process querying for docs that have the old author >> >>profile, and fixing those docs. Eventually all the >docs have been >> >>updated. Then its work is done. >> > >> > But how >> >>Something listening to the _changes feed notices this. >> > know about old author name? >> >> You have to tell it somehow. You can either ninja together some sort >> of way to do it through couch or do something out-of-band to notify >> your daemon process of what work it needs to do. > > Brave New World of NoSQL :-) > > Faust, if you care about data consistency to the extent it appears from > this thread, you should model your data so that consistency is easy, and > doesn't require ninjaing together some sort of way to unleash an armada > of hackery-hoo against inconsistency, which thrives on redundancy and is > a dreadful enemy if given rope, as in NoSQL land. > > I'm new here. Are there scenarios where writing happens to an SQL > server, from where NoSQL replicas are fed and used to serve readers?
Possibly. But, if you're writing to a single SQL master, then you lose two benefits of Couch: horizontally scalable writes and not having to be restricted by SQL's data model. You could do (for instance) single master writes and many-slave reads on a stock SQL server in that case. best, Andrew > -- > Michael Ludwig > -- -- Andrew Melo
