
RethinkDB 2.2: atomic changefeeds, parallel scans, improved runtime - coffeemug
http://rethinkdb.com/blog/2.2-release/
======
luiz-pv9
In case anyone is interested, they're going to do a live stream on youtube
about this release in a couple of hours:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt9EnhX24HU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt9EnhX24HU)

------
CitizenKane
Looks like a great release! Can't wait to get this installed and going on our
system. We use getAll almost everywhere, so that's going to be a very, very
welcome improvement.

Awesome to see Rethink continue to mature quickly and nicely.

------
mikemintz
This is a really exciting release! Atomic changefeeds make it much more
consistent and robust to subscribe to realtime data in the client, and the
performance improvements look incredible.

------
TheMissingPiece
Join our webcast in 10 min :)
[https://youtu.be/jt9EnhX24HU](https://youtu.be/jt9EnhX24HU)

------
Scarbutt
From the FAQ:

 _We recommend RethinkDB servers have at least 2GB of RAM_

Why does it needs so much memory?

~~~
assface
Because it's 2015.

~~~
jmakeig
And it’s a database with indexes and caches.

------
sotojuan
I really like Rethink, but are there easy to use hosting services for it? Like
ElephantSQL or Mongolabs.

~~~
mikemintz
Check out compose.io

[https://www.rethinkdb.com/blog/compose/](https://www.rethinkdb.com/blog/compose/)

[https://www.compose.io/rethinkdb/](https://www.compose.io/rethinkdb/)

------
bryanlarsen
There's a fairly major breaking change for a minor version bump.

~~~
mikemintz
I don't think there are actually any breaking changes. The release notes say
"includeInitial" is breaking, but I think all of your existing application
code will continue to run the same if you upgrade RethinkDB. It's just that
new code using includeInitial will fail on old versions of RethinkDB.

~~~
bryanlarsen
In 2.1 some changes commands included an initial value. Now none do unless you
add the flag. If you depended on that behavior, your app could break.

~~~
mikemintz
Thanks, I stand corrected! I always ignored initial values so I forgot about
that case.

