Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=mn4j0QFOFoTyQKjTv7KTt7WbqUFgOG5m6htFhIf1hOjbyUoW4Xln40mmPcoCiNbj6O
         HFOKH0TTLRW137p5IfQEODlShx71Tmf19VNGz7d704TSp92OR6Yqlq52weA3M9guNlks
         YtV1/VQB0wUT7n1tVKhO0qb9cUrv1AWtUMEGM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikhAAnvRd6ib2Nvu6bfm2ZO28qTe3O7WO2uOBGI@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikhAAnvRd6ib2Nvu6bfm2ZO28qTe3O7WO2uOBGI@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:57:55 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin0OPnpRAH7UQsH38wUnJXco-VciGMf86UxROqy@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CouchDB Partitioning Proposal
From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 02:29, Rob Stewart <robstewart57@googlemail.com> wro=
te:
> Hi Randall,
>
> With a response time like that, efficiency is your strong point.

Clearly that was somewhere below my mean response time ;)

> Next, you suggest potential like solution as Cassandra and Dynamo. I'd te=
nd
> to agree, as these are stable distributed systems. On saying that, Cassan=
dra
> doesn't use Erlang (as a Java implementation), though it adopted the
> flexible column layout from Google's BigTable. I've also had a look at
> MongoDB, which is a C++ implementation, but with similar goals as CouchDB
> (document-oriented database). They are currently working on database
> partitioning, though it's in its alpha stages, in version 1.5.3. I imagin=
e
> that MongoDB could be a good design guide for CouchDB in the future shoul=
d
> its sharding implementation matures.

I wasn't trying to suggest you use Cassandra. I was trying to point to
different approaches to sharding/clustering used by other projects and
expressing an interest in seeing a Dynamo-style clustering of Couch.

> In a slightly unrelated note, can I point you to a paper published in
> February, 2010 - =E2=80=9CKey/Value Datastores Comparison in AppScale=E2=
=80=9D. Briefly,
> AppScale is a open source drop-in replacement for Google's App Engine, an=
d
> provides API's to Cloud based web applications (typicall), and at the
> backend that have plugged in their app API's to the API's of 7 distribute=
d
> databases (including Cassandra and MongoDB). What are the chances of
> attaching CouchDB to the AppScale API's ?

Haven't had a chance to look yet, but that sounds like a pretty nice idea.

>
>
> My final point is Scalaris. (Google =E2=80=9CReliable Transactional P2P K=
ey/Value
> Store=E2=80=9D). Like CouchDB, it is a P2P datastore, implemented in Erla=
ng. Appears
> to be similar in design and implementation to CouchDB, to me? It uses Cho=
rd#
> to storing and retreiving key/values in nodes. It seemingly has support f=
or
> Heterogeneous hardware clusters, and it currently uses an in-memory
> disctionary for database stores, though using Mnesia has been suggested

I'm always surprised Scalaris doesn't come up more. I really like the
approach it takes. I don't hear much about it being used in the wild.
Have you any experience with it?

>
> Is that enough, to generate discussion, Randall ?
>

Heh. I dunno. What else do you want to talk about? What are you
thinking about doing next?

-Randall