On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Eric Benzacar <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Eric B <[email protected]> wrote: >> > So then my second option becomes to assign a "document-type" key to every >> > document and then filter upon that. Where my "document-type" key is akin >> > to an organizational/collection name. It's definitely better, but still >> > seems a little odd. >> > >> > The whole process seems very disorganized. >> >> Having document type field is a good and common practice. In fact, >> MongoDB uses the same, but at more high level calling this >> "collection". You can implement the same by using document type field >> and the view which emits documents by type. More over, you can create >> "collections" (views) across various documents by conditions whatever >> you like. >> >> > Is that not horribly inefficient? For a handful of documents I can see how > it would work, but for large datasets (ex: millions of docs), how efficient > is running everything through a JS compiled view? Each time you open a > view, it needs to filter millions of docs.
No, that wouldn't be. CouchDB vies are similar to materialized views with incremental updates from RDBMS: they indexes documents only once when they are get changed. -- ,,,^..^,,,
