-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Selective database archiving #1508
Comments
I think the partition work doesn't end up being helpful for a couple of reasons:
|
To be more positive, FWIW, I had some thoughts on this a while ago, and thought you could fold this kind of feature into a set of document lifecycle rules based on Mango selectors. In addition to archiving, you could also have delete as an action for TTL, so I wanted to capture the idea of combining potentially different actions and conditions into rules. What I thought was something that works like this. There's a set of one or more rules in a ddoc section which define actions and conditions using a selector. The action is {
"_id": "_design/lifecyle-example",
"_rev": "19-4426420428e8744fcfb67763cedd1ea8",
"doc-lifecycle-rules": [
{
"action": "archive",
"condition": [ { "doc_expiry": { "$lt": "$$now"}, "type": "vital_entry"} ]
},
{
"action": "delete",
"condition": [ { "doc_expiry": { "$lt": "$$now"}, "type": "spurious_entry"} ]
}
]
} Here:
|
@davisp:
@janl:
@wohali:
This is basically native support for things that we currently have to do using rolling databases or similar. It could go along with the partitioning support that is currently being worked on by @garrensmith and @rnewson and proposed by @mikerhodes .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: