order of siblings
mrad at blorf.com
Sun Mar 25 16:34:18 EDT 2012
You are right, I was assuming it would keep the vclock that was used
to write each sibling.
In any case, as others pointed out, I think the timestamps are
available from riakc_obj:get_metadatas.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Erik Søe Sørensen <ess at trifork.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "assuming the vclock entries are 1-1 with the siblings".
> That sounds rather like a misunderstanding of either what the vclock is, or of how the vclock is stored in the case of siblings.
> (As for the latter, only the merged vclock is stored for the entire key/value-pair; the length of that vclock is unrelated to the number of siblings.)
> Mobile: + 45 2636 1755 | Skype: eriksoesorensen | Twitter: @eriksoe
> Trifork A/S | Margrethepladsen 4 | DK- 8000 Aarhus C | Phone : +45 8732 8787 | www.trifork.com
> From: riak-users-bounces at lists.basho.com [riak-users-bounces at lists.basho.com] On Behalf Of Michael Radford [mrad at blorf.com]
> Sent: 24 March 2012 19:24
> To: riak-users at lists.basho.com
> Subject: order of siblings
> Is there a way to determine what Riak thinks is the last-written
> sibling (or one of them), when reading from Riak with allow_mult=true
> (via the erlang protobufs api)?
> I'm writing some conflict resolution code, which in many cases should
> fall back to the default strategy of last-writer-wins, and it would be
> nice to use Riak's default ordering instead of embedding an extra
> timestamp in the value.
> It looks like something like the unpacking of the vclock here might work:
> ...assuming the vclock entries are 1-1 with the siblings, but that's
> not clear to me. Or maybe the siblings already come in a particular
> order, oldest or newest first?
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
More information about the riak-users