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

The key-value conclusion #3

Open
johnyesberg opened this issue Jun 21, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

The key-value conclusion #3

johnyesberg opened this issue Jun 21, 2018 · 0 comments

Comments

@johnyesberg
Copy link
Contributor

I'm interested in the key-value conclusion. If the data is highly structured, e.g. tabular or hierarchical, then I imagine that a key might be "row x column y", or for (e.g. JSON) document data, a key might be "person.addresses.home.street_number". This could potentially make the storage quite inefficient/expensive.

I think that as long as

  • changesets can refer to the smallest atoms of data,
  • they can be reliably applied in forward/reverse direction as required
    then storing the master version in (say) CSV or JSON format would be just as useful.

I also wonder whether mentioning the "Command/Query Responsibility Segregation" (CQRS) and Event Sourcing patterns in the Review of Existing Tools and Approaches might be useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command%E2%80%93query_separation
https://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/EventSourcing.html
These can be useful when it is important to be able to undo or reconstruct sequences of operations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant