couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Two Concerns
Date Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:31:02 GMT
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:55 PM, David Van Couvering
<david.vancouvering@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris, is the CouchDB "vision" and focus going to be more on the
> localhost/CouchApp type of solution, or more on a robust, scalable
> distributed document database?  My sense is the former, even though I think
> CouchDB has a lot of advantages in the latter.

No question about it, CouchDB has it's sights set on being able to run
at datacenter-scale. Cloudant already has an implementation of
partitioning (based on Cliff Moon's Dynomite) which can handle
big-data / high-throughput by clustering across many machines. I can't
speak for them, but they've expressed interest in rolling this back
into the Apache tree, and I imagine a lot of this work will happen in
the coming months.

Without being able to run at datacenter-scale, it won't matter much if
we nailed the localhost stuff. P2P replication is neat and all, but
without being able to handle the cases where data sizes and
request-rates go through the roof, Couch wouldn't be useful for
real-world apps.

In fact, most of our current users are more interested in big-data,
and our API has been designed from the ground up to support those
cases (eg, no multi-doc transactions or validations, map/reduce,
cacheability, etc).

I am personally excited about the localhost stuff, because no one else
is really thinking about it in the way that Couch is. I think when
we've pulled it off, we'll have fundamentally changed the web
architecture. But in the mean time, we also need to focus on
scale-out.


>
> In particular, CouchDB is easy to understand, easy to set up, easy to use,
> is free, and has strong community support.  None of the other distributed
> solutions have all those advantages, be it sharded MySQL, Hadoop, Neo4j or
> Cassandra.
>
> Is there room for CouchDB to go in both directions, or should those of us
> looking for a good distributed DB solution be looking elsewhere?
>

CouchDB's API is designed to handle giant data. I don't trumpet that
much because it's not personally that exciting to me (scale is a
problem you can throw resources at, building new programming paradigms
requires the dedication to stick with it even when everyone thinks
you're crazy.) The Web wasn't designed to solve scaling problems, its
success at scaling was a side-effect of its simplicity.

Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.

Chris

> Thanks!
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Sean Clark Hess <seanhess@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks Tim.
>> >
>> > One more thing I thought of. I don't remember having this impression
>> before,
>> > but as I read the Oreilly Book, it seems that the idea of running Couch
>> on
>> > devices and local computers is a major feature. There are many features
>> > designed to make CouchDB able to function without middleware.
>> >
>> > My question is: why? That's what middleware is for...
>>
>> The answer is not that Couch is trying to do everything. Really, we
>> have one thing we do extremely well, and that is robust JSON storage
>> with p2p replication, accessed over HTTP.
>>
>> Because we do that already, the ability to serve apps directly from
>> the Couch to the browser is low-hanging-fruit. It is also the best way
>> to take advantage of replication. Other NoSQL stores may be able to
>> rival our capabilities as a scalable database, but no database running
>> in a remote datacenter will be as fast for users as a Couch running on
>> localhost.
>>
>> Middleware is fine even for apps that run at the edge, but if your app
>> requires middleware, that is yet another thing that will need to be
>> installed on the users's machine. CouchDB's eventual goal is to part
>> of the standard desktop stack -- just another feature of web browsers.
>>
>> It is this vision that led to the code that supports HTML rendering.
>> Ajax apps are nearly good enough for most cases, but fall down badly
>> when accessibility and searchability come into play. Also,
>> link-following is an essential part of the REST architecture, and it
>> is absent from a JSON-only interface.
>>
>> There are apps which can be written against the local Couch and
>> browser stack, that can't be written any other way.
>>
>> If you aren't trying to write one of those, the CouchApp feature set
>> is still useful. See for instance the people using _list to filter
>> view responses according to user authentication information, or
>> _update to provide update-in-place like semantics.
>>
>> I hope this helps to answer your question.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Anderson
>> http://jchrisa.net
>> http://couch.io
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Van Couvering
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidvc
> http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/dcouvering
>



-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io

Mime
View raw message