couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Comparison of MongoDB & CouchDB: MongoDB seems better on insert
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:48:08 GMT
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 17:19, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2010, at 23:08, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Dec 2010, at 23:05, Brian Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have verified that CouchDB users love URLs but don't tend to read them
because their database is too slow.
>>>>
>>>> (Joking aside, I find it annoying that people can't ever manage to answer
things without storming off and writing long blog posts on methods of measurement or simply
never actually answering things with any more substance than the things they seem to attack
as poor evidence. I do realize there is a large gap here and apples vs. oranges isn't productive,
but neither is this.)
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Paul on IRC reminds me that this might have been target at me, funny :)
>
> I saw your reply after I hit send. :-) Paul's response was funny but I've seen this go
down too many times not to let a short little rant out.
>

Apologies for being dismissive, I didn't read the subject thoroughly
enough to figure out it was that specific slide. A more on topic reply
would've been along the lines of:

    Yup, Mongo is generally faster with these types of benchmarks.

>> The blog posts are for background which is generally lacking as these benchmarks
keep coming up. I did point out why this is a bad scenario for CouchDB and offered an explanation
of better scenarios, but I can't go and define your scenario because, well, it's yours. That
is the whole point of my stupid benchmarks are stupid argument.
>>
>> I also did offer more information if requested and I am happy to go into the details
of why CouchDB performs better under concurrent load if requested. If you are requesting that,
can you formulate a question? :)
>
> You did all I can ask for in the sense of constructive response... though I do think
the CouchDB community seems shy on providing people with simple ranges of data to help them
decide to invest time into more refined measurement.
>
> The truth is that couchdb does have it's strengths that don't tend to show well in many
cases. On the other hand, some applications do need performance numbers that don't easily
come from a standard couched setup. Knowing this before diving into dangerous comparisons
will help avoid the awkwardness as people try to measure things that don't really represent
the priorities of a project well. Right now you have to dig deeper than most people will ever
look to find these numbers. They are hidden whether that is done intentionally or not.
>
> I'd think that it'd be in the community's favor to be as clear as possible with what
kind of ballpark the DB is in. People who miss out on the great parts of CouchDB because they
only focus on speed (so they chose something else) are probably not the prime targets of this
project anyway. If people here disagree, then some serious work needs to be done on improving
these numbers (IMO, there is a lot of speed to gain).
>
> Brian.
>
>

I don't think its at all fair to characterize the CouchDB community as
shy about providing data. All we require is a question that can be
reasonably answered without making wild assumptions because as you
point out it would more often than not just set people up for
disappointment.

HTH,
Paul Davis

Mime
View raw message