[development] Requiring node revisions

[David Metzler]

If that's true, then the overhead of a JOIN on an empty table would  
be significantly different than the join on a table that has a  
million rows in it, regardless of the filter criteria, yes?

I really like being able to enable/disable this by content type,  
particularly in light of the discussions regarding making more things  
nodes.  (user profiles, commments, etc).

Are we suggesting that the option goes a way or that revisions.module  
becomes required or dissapears, or are we talking about making  
revisions always on or always off?

On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Derek Wright wrote:

>
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>
>> Maybe I just don't want the overhead?
>>
>> That would be a neat thing to have.
>
> i hope you don't take this the wrong way, but i don't think you  
> grasp how {node_revisions} currently works.  you get the overhead  
> of the JOIN on {node_revisions} no matter what (though as David  
> points out, this is mostly free, since we rarely/never try to WHERE  
> or ORDER BY on things from {node_revisions}).  the only overhead of  
> this change is the extra rows in the {node_revisions} table, and  
> the thread is already discussing interesting ways to limit/reduce  
> *that* overhead for sites that care about such things.
>
> -derek
>