- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:26:36 -0700
- To: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
I didn't take it as opposing at all. I figured you'd like it as I based it on your description of how you do it in CouchDB ;-) I just wanted to make sure that we nail down all the details, including the sorting order, so if you see anything wrong definitely point it out! / Jonas On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 00:27:30 UTC