[SERVER-9247] Small modification to Data storage scheme Created: 04/Apr/13  Updated: 04/Apr/13  Resolved: 04/Apr/13

Status: Closed
Project: Core Server
Component/s: Performance
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Improvement Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: kumar Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Duplicate Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Duplicate
duplicates SERVER-863 Tokenize the field names Closed
Participants:

 Description   

It is known that data is stored in the form of JSON documents which contain "fieldname:value" format of data in it. Generally it is recommended to give small field names as they are stored in each and every document and hence the overall size of database may be increased because of field names itself.

Why cant we maintain a table/document for every collection which contains the list of "number:its_actual_fieldname" and if every field name of all the documents of that collection are internally stored with its corresponding number only.

For example:

{first_name:kumar, last_name:K}

is stored as

{#1:kumar, #2:K}

and the collection will maintain the information as #1:first_name, #2:last_name. So, whenever any document of that collection is requested, it verifies the list and replaces the numbers/codes with their respective field names and then displays to the user. By this we can increase the readability of the field names and also can efficiently eliminate the redundant storage of field names.

(Please don't mind if this is not a proper place to discuss such issues and let me know about it)



 Comments   
Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 04/Apr/13 ]

Kumar if you read the full thread in SERVER-863 you'll find our explanation of how we're approaching this problem and what our time frame is.

Comment by kumar [ 04/Apr/13 ]

Hi Ian, Thanks a lot. That is almost similar to what I am expecting. But can you tell me why it is still unresolved and why is it so difficult to implement such

Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 04/Apr/13 ]

Hi Kumar, I believe what you're looking for is SERVER-863. Please read through that ticket for an understanding of where we stand on this idea.

Generated at Thu Feb 08 03:19:49 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.