On 4 July 2014 02:01, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Very shortly we are going to start on the work to be able to store
multiple environments within a single mongo database.
Most of our current entities are stored in the database with their name
or id fields serialized
My expectation is that:
1) We certainly need the environment UUID as a separate field for the shard
key.
2) We *also* need the environment UUID as an _id prefix to keep our
watchers sane.
2a) If we had separate collections per environment, we wouldn't; but AIUI,
scaling mongo by adding
I would think that if we have to put environ-uuid into the _id field, then
we wouldn't need yet-another field to shard on (at least if we put it at
the beginning of the field).
John
=:-
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com
wrote:
My expectation is that:
On 4 July 2014 11:24, William Reade william.re...@canonical.com wrote:
My expectation is that:
1) We certainly need the environment UUID as a separate field for the shard
key.
2) We *also* need the environment UUID as an _id prefix to keep our watchers
sane.
2a) If we had separate
...
It can be a great advantage when scaling to be able to partition the
transactions across different parts of the database. If we want this to
be able to scale, I think we *have* to make it work without requiring
transactions across environments. There is no way that we can scale
as far
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
1. change the _id field to be a composed field where it is the
concatenation of the environment id and the existing id or name field.
If we do take this approach, I strongly recommend having the fields that
make
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:01 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote:
There is another possiblity: we could just use a different collection
name prefix for each environment. There is no hard limit on the number
of collections in mongo (see
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:32 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote:
It won't be possible to shard the transaction log.
Why not?
The thing I'm trying to get across is: until we know one way or
another, I believe it would be better to choose the (much) simpler
option and use the
