You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@couchdb.apache.org by Mike Marino <mm...@gmail.com> on 2014/05/15 10:34:41 UTC

update_seq different in view query vs design-doc/_info?

Hi all,

I have a question regarding the update_seq returned with the two methods:

1.  /db/_design/ddoc/_info
   (in the view_index object)

2.  /db/_design/ddoc/_view/view_name?update_seq=true
   (+ other query strings in principle)

I am finding that the update_seq is not always the same between 1 and 2,
even though I would expect it to be, at least given the documents:

http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/1.5.x/api/ddoc/common.html#db-design-design-doc-info

http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/1.5.x/api/ddoc/views.html

The second of which says:
"In addition to using stale views, you can also make use of the update_seq
query argument. Using this query argument generates the view information
including the update sequence of the database from which the view was
generated. The returned value can be compared this to the current update
sequence exposed in the database information (returned by GET /{db})."

I would like to be able to compare the #2 update_seq value with the
update_seq gotten from GET /db, but this doesn't seem to be reliable.
 Here's an example taken from performing 1 and 2 right after each other:

1.
{u'name': u'execute_commands',
 u'view_index': {u'compact_running': False,
                 u'data_size': 9915,
                 u'disk_size': 200822,
                 u'language': u'javascript',
                 u'purge_seq': 0,
                 u'signature': u'6a6068421d1c10bd8819736505b31f4b',
                 u'update_seq': 409478,
                 u'updater_running': False,
                 u'waiting_clients': 0,
                 u'waiting_commit': True}}

2.
{u'rows': [{u'key': None, u'value': 50}], u'update_seq': 343094}

I think this is due to the fact that this one particular view does not emit
that often.  The question is, is this expected?  That is, should I not
expect that the update_seq in 2 is not the same as that in 1?

Cheers,
Mike