To clarify, I am using the erlang client. From the looks of it, the vector clock transition to the new value is opaque to the client so the only way to streamline this use case is to pass the `return_body` option (My use case is one read, many subsequent writes while updating in memory).
In this case however, I already have the value in memory, so it seems inefficient to have to get the entire riakc_obj back when I really just need the metadata to construct the new object. Is this correct? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Ong <jer...@quarkgames.com> wrote: > Suppose I have an object X. > > I make an update to X and store it as X1. I perform a put operation using > X1. > > The same client then makes a modification to X1 and stores it as X2. Then, > I perform a put operation using X2. > > This will create two siblings X1 and X2 if allow_mult is true. Is there > any way I can avoid this? To me, the vector clock should have incremented > once when transitioning from X to X1, then once more when transitioning > from X1 to X2. This way, I shouldn't need to issue a get before I have to > perform another write since my data is already in memory. > > I probably am misunderstanding something about vector clocks. Does anybody > care to clarify this? > > Thanks, > Jeremy >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
