Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail
From	Oren Shani <orenshani7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.ruby
Subject	Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict
Date	Fri, 20 May 2011 05:50:13 -0500
Organization	Service de news de lacave.net
Lines	25
Message-ID	<efbc3434f58e902a9d6818ba6009162a@ruby-forum.com> (permalink)
NNTP-Posting-Host	bristol.highgroove.com
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	talisker.lacave.net 1305888639 54115 65.111.164.187 (20 May 2011 10:50:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@lacave.net
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 20 May 2011 10:50:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Received-From	This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway
X-Mail-Count	383512
X-Ml-Name	ruby-talk
X-Rubymirror	Yes
X-Ruby-Talk	<efbc3434f58e902a9d6818ba6009162a@ruby-forum.com>
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:4807

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi All,

So now (with some starter help I got here), I played around with Couch
Potato enough to see that I really like it. I have one big problem
though and this is really critical for what I am developing.

Apache boast that CouchDB does not lock the DB documents as SQL locks
tables, and that users always get their requests granted via a queue.
But what about the classic concurrency conflicts that SQL uses locks for
in the first place? for example, suppose I have a field in some document
that each client should read, increase by some value and then save, as
you probably know, if two clients read the field and then both save it,
only the addition done by one of them will be actually saved.

So I wonder what is the best practice for handling this kind of
situations with Couch Potato or with CouchDB at all? I really don't want
to have to use SQL just because of that...

Many thanks,

Oren

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Back to comp.lang.ruby | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict Oren Shani <orenshani7@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 05:50 -0500
  Re: Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-20 07:05 -0500
    Re: Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict Oren Shani <orenshani7@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 08:11 -0500
      Re: Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-20 08:56 -0500
        Re: Another Couch potato question: Dealing with classic concurrency conflict Oren Shani <orenshani7@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 09:28 -0500

csiph-web