[development] Requiring node revisions

[Karthik]

On 08/06/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> > Eh? So what is by and large? Does that mean some queries will be less
> > efficient?
> >
> > For example, how about if my module in contrib perform an ORDER BY on
> > node_revisions fields such as timestamp and uid? This would require a
> > filesort on the entire table ... Will these be unaffected?
>
> That's a ridiculous, contrived scenario. If your site's small enough,
> the performance won't change much. If your site's large, you should add
> a new index on {node_revisions}. You're not going to convince anyone
> here that the DB should be structured to maximize performance of your
> hypothetical, ill-conceived queries.

I'm just refuting claims that there is no difference in performance.
Even with core queries, there will be a difference in performance,
albeit minor. But a difference nonetheless.

> > a) Taking away choice.
>
> Taking away frivolous choices is a good thing.

What is frivolous to you is not frivolous to other people. That's why
Drupal gives them a choice. Drupal is inherently malleable.

> > b) Increasing table size.
> > c) Introducing inefficiency.
> > d) Loading the table with potentially unnecessary junk whether I like it
> > or not.
>
> All three of those are overstatements of the same thing: the DB gets a
> little better. The increase in size is pretty minor.

Perhaps I'm taking a leaf out of all the redundancies in your first
post? The advantages gained are just not noteworthy enough, or can
already be realised by just defaulting to "create new revision".

> > e) Asking me to sort any resulting issues out with another contrib module.
>
> It's official policy to completely disregard compatibility issues with
> contrib.

I was talking about your recommendation to use a contrib module to
clean up old revisions.

> > f) Telling me what's good for my site.
>
> If you're so desperate to not have revisions, you can write a contrib
> module that deletes all old revisions every time you save a node.

Why? I'm happy as it is now.

> > ... all for the sake of a couple of checkboxes.
>
> And all the other reasons mentioned in my post. Nice strawman.

Please read and reply to Dries' response.

-K