- From: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:22:10 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Reading back over my email is sounds opposing and that wasn't my intention, it was a long way of saying +1 and giving an explanation for why we went with the same approach in CouchDB. -Mikeal On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com> wrote: >> The complex keys are how we do this in CouchDB as well. But, again, >> the sorting algorithm needs to be well defined in order for it work. >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/View_collation#Collation_Specification >> >> Most pertinent to your example is how arrays of varying length might >> be ordered, for instance range queries over your example would break >> for [firstName, lastName] if an entry omitted lastName and arrays were >> sorted by length and then by comparison of each item. This is why the >> CouchDB collation algorithm sorts: >> >> ["a"] >> ["b"] >> ["b","c"] >> ["b","c", "a"] >> ["b","d"] >> ["b","d", "e"] > > How is that different from what I proposed? I think that was what I > intended to propose, but I might be missing some edge cases :) > > I take it that ["a", "z"] would be sorted between ["a"] and ["b"]? > > / Jonas >
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2010 00:22:38 UTC