> .it sounds hackey. Just use update_after. It's not a hack.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Stanley Iriele <[email protected]>wrote: > Idk..it sounds hackey.. But curl and crontab is good enough for me for the > views that can't fall more than 1 minute behind > On Nov 20, 2013 2:57 PM, "Robert Newson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The bigcouch merge will not bring any automatic view updating > > scheduler. Nothing stops someone contributing one, of course. > > > > B. > > > > > > On 20 November 2013 22:49, Mike Marino <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There are, of course, ways to get couchdb to update views dependent on > > > writes. I also believe this is supposed to get easier in the future > > > (included in the bigcouch merge?). > > > > > >> Am 20.11.2013 um 23:46 schrieb Simon Metson <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> Nope, views are updated on read, hence the "blocking" behaviour you > > describe. You can query with update_after, which returns the stale index > > then triggers the update. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 at 22:43, Mark Hahn wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I thought that every write triggered a view rebuild and that the > stale > > >>> option only meant a read didn't have to wait for a current rebuild to > > >>> finish. That would means the views are pretty much up-to-date. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> True, but remember couchdb doesn't automatically keep indexes fresh > in > > >>>> the background, so "stale" can be "really really stale". ;) > > >>>> > > >>>> B. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 20 November 2013 22:34, Simon Metson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>> Unless your app can deal with querying the view stale. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 at 21:56, Mark Hahn wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I meant http view requests were blocked. It is waiting for the > view > > >>>>>> rebuild. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm can't type what I'm thinking today. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> never mind. I wasn't talking about the file level at all. I meant > > that > > >>>>>>> http read requests are blocked after http update requests. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Robert Newson < > [email protected] > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> "DB reads are blocked by DB updates at the http level." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Nope, there's a process that can read the database and a > separate > > >>>> one > > >>>>>>>> for writing to it. Writing to an append only file is obviously > > >>>>>>>> serialized but there's no need to block reads. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> B. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On 20 November 2013 21:35, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Database writes are not coupled to view updates. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I understand now, you are talking about file read/write level. > DB > > >>>> reads > > >>>>>>>>> are blocked by DB updates at the http level. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Newson < > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> "A write requires updating views and reads have to wait for > the > > >>>> update" > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Is not true. Database writes are not coupled to view updates. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 20:59, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> A write requires updating views and reads have > > >>>>>>>>>>> to wait for the update > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >
