couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alain Mouette <>
Subject Re: CouchDB vs RethinkDB
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:34:07 GMT
Em 05-11-2013 19:13, Jim Klo escreveu:
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Ryan Mohr <>
>   wrote:
>> Rethink caught my interest a little while back too.  Looks like a well
>> designed database and a great collection of tools to support it.
>> The immediate difference that jumped out at me (and the ultimate reason I
>> chose couch over rethink) is that rethink does not and will never support
>> master-master replication.  See this thread for some background:
>> Both databases are "distributed" but in different respects.  CouchDB is
>> "distributed" in the same way git is "distributed" (eg we're all equals).
>> RethinkDB is "distributed" in the scaling sense (sharding / cluster-wide
>> queries) but there is always an authoritative master.
> It seems to me that one could build an add-on to any database to support this I think?
 I was actually wondering how difficult it would be to build a 'generic replication api' that
leverages the same CouchDB replication protocol…  Has anyone endeavored to try anything
like this?  It seems like it should be straight forward.
> In a sense it does feel a lot like BigCouch + MongoDB…

Yes, there is something like that for LevelDB:
The reason that it uses LevelDB is because it is more basic, usualy the 
backgound storage and it is therefore very fast

But I am not sure if it can recover from a Net-split which is something 
that I am not even sure if CouchDB can do stand-alone


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message