Mark Hahn <[email protected]>编写：
>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
