Skip to content
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

Consider alternative storage mechanisms #3

jesse-gallagher opened this issue Nov 5, 2019 · 1 comment


Copy link

@jesse-gallagher jesse-gallagher commented Nov 5, 2019

The storage system is designed to use a couple views for document lookup. It'd be potentially more efficient to modify file storage (maybe using just binary data blobs) and potentially the hierarchy (it could be done graph-style).

On the other hand, the way it works now is explicable and provides nice "diagnostics" in the Notes client.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jesse-gallagher jesse-gallagher commented Nov 10, 2019

It may be worth organizing documents documents in a response hierarchy, keeping the current benefits of explicability in Notes and even improving upon that with cut/paste behavior. With "store specialized response hierarchy", this would essentially be the "graph" idea but supported by Notes.

The trouble would be that looking up a document by path would either require duplicating the path in a field in the doc (which would be tedious and fault-prone) or making multiple NIF calls to walk down the path. That would either be done by walking down the response hierarchy (which would likely require manual filtering, since I don't think it would do multiple key lookups) or maintaining a "files by parent" view to repeatedly look up by $REF value.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
1 participant
You can’t perform that action at this time.