Re: [IndexedDB] Multi-value keys

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 <> 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 <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers <> 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.
>>> 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