search

byzhang / terrastore

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/terrastore
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Implement fast merge operation #152

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The new top-level operation will use in-place updates to provide fast document 
modifications.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 19 Jan 2011 at 7:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What name would you like for this new operation?
"Update" is already taken, so I was thinking to "merge", but I'm not that sure 
... do you like "merge"? any other ideas?

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 19 Jan 2011 at 7:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What do you think about of "fastUpdate"? It's cool, isn't it?

Original comment by you...@gmail.com on 19 Jan 2011 at 10:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Well, the problem is we already use the word "update" for server-side update 
functions: using it again may lead people to think this new feature works the 
same as the other one, which is not the case.
Fast updates work by using a special-purpose update syntax as reported on issue 
151, so there are no functions involved.

So, in the end, I think "fastUpdate" doesn't fit well ... any other ideas?

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 19 Jan 2011 at 1:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
No Sergio, so we will use "merge"?

Original comment by you...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 4:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
You mean you have no better ideas? :)
Well, it seems we'll stick with "merge".

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Feels to me that this more 'update' than the 'update functions', so maybe the 
latter should be given a new name?

Original comment by johansso...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Don't think so: atomic functions actually perform updates.
Moreover, I have some concerns about changing well-established terminologies, 
in particular because we mention "atomic update functions" several times in the 
wiki, issue tracker, mailing list and so on ... aren't you?

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
And anyways, "merge" isn't imho that bad after all: that use of + and - and * 
signs makes me think of merges actually.

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Implemented.

The new merge operation is available at the following url: /bucket/key/merge, 
requiring a json document which describes the merge operation as explained in 
issue 151.

Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2011 at 6:20