On 7/27/2013 11:17 AM, Joe Zhang wrote: > Thanks for sharing, Roman. I'll look into your code. > > One more thought on your suggestion, Shawn. In fact, for the id, we need > more than "unique" and "rangeable"; we also need some sense of atomic > values. Your approach might run into risk with a text-based id field, say: > > the id/key has values 'a', 'c', 'f', 'g', and our pagesize is 2. Your > suggestion would work fine. But with newly added documents, there is no > guarantee that they are not going to use the key value 'b'. And this new > document would be missed in your algorithm, right?
That's why I said that you would either have to not update the index or ensure that (in your example) a 'b' document never gets added. Because you can't make that kind of guarantee in most situations, not updating the index is safer. Thanks, Shawn
