couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Dionne <dio...@dionne-associates.com>
Subject Re: Ars Technica finds DesktopCouch too laggy
Date Fri, 14 May 2010 13:11:44 GMT
I saw this and thought it was kind of mixed, but clearly not positive. I'm wondering about
the use case and how it was put together, whether it was tested adequately under load, etc..


I've been prototyping some stuff [1] that runs on a desktop and if you look at these screenshots
of a modified Futon, I'm doing type ahead searching that is very fast, and this runs fast
even while the search index is being built, other dbs are being replicated/compacted/etc..


So yea, I'd love to see a discussion or post-mortem of what the issues were. Is it just too
early a version?

Cheers,

Bob

[1] http://dionne.posterous.com/bitcask-bitstore-and-fti-in-couchdb




On May 14, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Wout Mertens wrote:

> Hi group,
> 
> I noticed with sadness the rather disappointing review of the DesktopCouch feature of
Ubuntu at Ars Technica:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/05/lucid-dream-ars-reviews-ubuntu-1004.ars/9
> 
> "The take-away point is that the amount of latency and CPU overhead that DesktopCouch
introduces is just not conducive to building responsive desktop applications that run on a
wide range of ordinary consumer hardware. In cases where the number of records is in the tens
of thousands, it's more sensible to use SQLite and use DesktopCouch only for the parts that
need to be synchronized."
> 
> I wonder where the lag is introduced. DesktopCouch is, as I understand it, a Python API
for storing and synchronizing user data like settings and chat logs, using CouchDB as the
backend.
> 
> Is CouchDB too slow to use on a desktop system as a desktop database?
> 
> Wout.


Mime
View raw message