I don't have an answer to your question; however, I have a question. Why are you using couchdb to try to simulate tables? Why not just use a RDBMS?
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Chris Stockton <chrisstockto...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > > We are deciding our convention for how we will emulate tables in couch > db. Our current idea is the user named tables will each have a design > document with punycode names. "tableňame" is a design doc stored as -> > I.E. _design/tableame-uqb. Of course this brings up a collision > problem for our system defined design docs, such as lucene etc. So it > was decided system design docs would begin with _ and user tables > would be prohibited from beginning with _. However this gives a uneasy > feeling as _ is very much reserved as a first character in both > properties and database names, although as of .10 _design/_foo is > allowed, I would like to make sure this is considered acceptable > practice and will remain available moving forward. > > Some thoughts have been a design document specifying the tables within > the database, like _design/tables, this seems like a fairly clean > approach and I am unsure any advantage is given by having separate > design docs for each table as they contain no views (currently those > live in a separate design doc) just meta data about the table. I would > appreciate hearing any solutions people have made to this problem > (user created tables in a database). > > -Chris >
