W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Multi-value keys

From: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:22:10 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDN2-CmUOztdpMWauQvMDH_Bg526R8rxN8YE_m@mail.gmail.com>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:08 UTC