On 07.01.2014 01:53, Jens Alfke wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Lars <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It might depend on your definition of "added document". If `PUT >> /db/docid` and `POST /db` are the only ways to "add", then do what Bob >> said and stop at the first non-design document with a seq number of 1. > > That’s still going to return documents by order modified, not created. > > I think you mean “generation number”, not “seq number”, as only the first > document ever added to the db will have a sequence number of 1. And you’ll > only see a generation number of 1 if the doc’s never been updated after the > initial add, so this isn’t useful in the general case.
Yep sorry, I mean the number part of the revision. It being 1 is the only way to tell addition and update apart, though, isn't it? > >> It starts getting tricky if you also include in your definition >> documents that are created by replication, and I'm not sure how to >> handle that. > > It’s not really any different. They appear in the _changes feed just as local > changes do. But you only get the leaf revisions of the documents, not neccessarily the first revision, which "added" the document. > > —Jens >
0x7E86809F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
