couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn." <>
Subject Re: CouchDB vs RethinkDB
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:42:51 GMT
Couch can and will handle net splits. If you use the replicator db. Conflicts will be detected
and a winning version is determistically chosen on each node, resulting in the same doc everywhere.

Alain Mouette <> wrote:
>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
>>> 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
>>> master-master replication.  See this thread for some background:
>>> Both databases are "distributed" but in different respects.  CouchDB
>>> "distributed" in the same way git is "distributed" (eg we're all
>>> RethinkDB is "distributed" in the scaling sense (sharding /
>>> 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

Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

View raw message