You're right, the disk activity would probably be unchanged. But it would still require keeping the list of version numbers for every doc in memory like my current scheme.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jens Alfke <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am already using a scheme that requires me to store the latest revision > > number for every doc in memory. You scheme would also require that and > it > > would cause extra reads. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > Sure, it requires extra reads if the _changes feed skipped a revision, but > it seems like the skipped revision and the read cancel out, so it’s the > same amount of work as if you’d gotten every revision. > > Is any of this worse than rewriting your app? :) > > —Jens
