﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Ayende @ Rahien</title><link>http://ayende.com</link><description>Ayende @ Rahien</description><copyright>Copyright (C) Ayende Rahien  2004 - 2021 (c) 2026</copyright><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Matt Warren commented on Entity != Table</title><description>Nuno: Lucene can do range searches, see 
[lucene.apache.org/.../queryparsersyntax.html](http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html#Range%20Searches). I don't know how it does in internally though.
  
  
RavenDB then handles this for you when you index a filed that is numeric, see 
[http://ravendb.net/documentation/how-indexes-work](http://ravendb.net/documentation/how-indexes-work).
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment7</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment7</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:27:45 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Nuno Lopes commented on Entity != Table</title><description>Hi,
  
  
I understand that RavenDB uses Lucene for indexing. 
  
  
There are situations where we would like to search by field, say a range of dates with another value:
  
  
"SELECT * FROM POSTS WHERE PostDate &gt;= @StartDate AND PostDate &gt;= @EndDate AND BloggerID = "nbplopes";
  
  
How does Lucene perform with this? Does it perform a full scan or applies a smarter algorithm?
  
  
If it does not perform that well, can we use another kind of DB for index tables? Say MYSQL?
  
  
Nuno
  
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment6</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment6</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:49:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Jason Meckley commented on Entity != Table</title><description>Elaborating on what was easier and/or more difficult would make for an interesting series or posts.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment5</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment5</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:19:01 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Frans Bouma commented on Entity != Table</title><description>P. Chen defined 'entity' decades ago. It still stands, as it has nothing to do with _implementation_ aspects (table, document, class etc.), but with what you recognize in the problem domain.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment4</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment4</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:17:33 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Demis Bellot commented on Entity != Table</title><description>Yeah that's pretty much why we should always write do our domain models-first so we know what compromises we are making in order to fit in within a RDBMS.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment3</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment3</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:58:05 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ryan Heath commented on Entity != Table</title><description>"a whole range of issues just went away"
  
but which issues did you get back for it? ;)
  
  
For one, I can imagine that the referential integrity implemented (forced) by the sql databases is felt missing in document databases.
  
  
What (other) problems (in relation to Raven) did you encounter with this project, and how did you fix them?
  
  
// Ryan
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment2</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment2</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:45:21 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>scooletz commented on Entity != Table</title><description>Every DDD guy would probably say, that the assumption Entity == Table is false in the majority of Domains ;-)
</description><link>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment1</link><guid>http://ayende.com/4611/entity-table#comment1</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:49:16 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>