Hi Michael,
I'm not sure how you would do that. The predicates are non-exclusive so I'd
have to literally perform the aggregation outside of the database. I suppose
if you went this way, you could check the document matches for each predicate,
choosing the smallest set to examine outside of the database.
Regards,
Brendon.
On 24 Jan 2011, at 16:12 , Michael Zedeler wrote:
> On 2011-01-24 13:49, Brendon McLean wrote:
>> Our documents really only contain two types of data:
>>
>> Numeric attributes
>> Boolean attributes
>> The boolean attributes essentially mark a document as belonging to one or
>> more non-exclusive sets. The numeric attributes will always only need to be
>> summed. One way of structuring the document is like this:
>>
>> {
>> "id": 3123123,
>> "attr": {"x": 2, "y": 4, "z": 6},
>> "sets": ["A", "B", "C"]
>> }
>> With this structure, it's easy to work out aggregate x, y, z values for the
>> sets A, B and C, but it gets more complicated when you want to see the
>> aggregates for intersections like A&C.
>>
>> In this small case I could emit keys for all permutations of ABC ("A, B, C,
>> AB, AC, BC, ABC"), but I'm worried about how this will scale. Our documents
>> could belong to some combination of 80 sets and it is fronted by a
>> user-interface which can construct any conceivable combination of them.
>>
>> I'm inclined to think that this isn't a job for a CouchDB, and perhaps
>> MongoDB or something else would be better suited to this problem.
> We have solved the problem for attributes by creating one index for each
> attribute (running one query for each index) and then just aggregating the
> results after.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
