I'm not sure I get this. If the results were ordered locally, you could do merge sort for the global set. Mergesort has the advantage that its resource consumption scales linearly with the size of the result set. Wha'd I miss? A
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Brian Candler<[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:56:49PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote: > >> The reason why CouchDB can't do the sorting by value inside itself is > >> that on a multi node cluster, an individual couch can't know the > >> global ordering. We have a commitment to ensuring that CouchDB's API > >> remains invariant regardless of the size of the underlying cluster. > >> > >> So you basically have to copy the cluster-wide reduce values to an > >> intermediate storage mechanism (which itself can be a cluster) before > >> you can sort them by value. > > > > Not sure I understand. If this is a sharded cluster, then each node could > > sort its own subset of results; then it's very simple and efficient to > merge > > the already-sorted results together. > > > > Exactly! > > Except that in order to get a global ordering for group reduces, you > have to do the ordering after the merge, not before. > > > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchrisa.net > http://couch.io >
