[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1367?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13175357#comment-13175357
]
Robert Newson commented on COUCHDB-1367:
----------------------------------------
On reflection, it's couchdb-lucene's bug, not couchdb's. Let me explain.
CouchDB-Lucene (to give it its grown-up name) compares the update_seq from a
GET /dbname to the sequences a background process is indexing through. It then
unblocks searcher threads as that process reaches or exceeds the required
update_seq. This is, in fact, just silly.
Instead, a search query should cause a GET /dbname/_changes?since=<latest index
checkpoint>. It should block until it consumes the entire response, passing the
updates to the indexing process. It can then return a non-stale search result.
In the case that the index is fresh, the _changes response contains no rows,
and serves only to confirm that the index is fresh. If, as planned,
CouchDB-Lucene *also* runs a _changes?feed=continuous to keep indexes fresh in
the background then indexes will simply be fresher than they would be in the
CouchDB case.
I repeat, CouchDB-Lucene's *mistake* is to *only* use the feed=continuous
variety of the changes feed. This prevents it from knowing when its own index
is fresh.
I will make this change next week and I suggest that this ticket be closed with
no further action taken.
> When settings revs_limit on db - the db increases its update_seq counter when
> viewing stats - but not when getting changes
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-1367
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1367
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: HTTP Interface
> Affects Versions: 1.1.1
> Environment: Any
> Reporter: Henrik Hofmeister
> Assignee: Bob Dionne
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: revs_limit
>
> If you put a number to _revs_limit on a db (to update it) - the
> http://host/dbname/ info document gets an increase in update_seq number -
> however the changes feed does not contain this change (while its not a
> change). This causes the update_seq in the dbinfo doc and the last seq in the
> changes feed to differ - which breaks any application depending on the
> update_seq number as the expected sequence size of the db (in my case -
> couchdb-lucene that will only respond to stale requests because it thinks its
> not up to date)
> I know this is an edge case - but still its something fairly fundamental -
> that clearly is not working as intended.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
