Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of klimpong@gmail.com designates
 209.85.161.52 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Q0IThWLEw7OGac7ZrQRk3yMdkR6bXwZhtQbwzo20dszW8YH8vXZPcCSNA3LIua6rAf
         v1a39y9lgtXKy5l6DeveMBjBrHEesJwE1zxhFX1qubF+g1QSyllpR70UyGkahrZ5YZoQ
         Vz4zZHZqoJAcii7jCawFevX2Byvuvy0+ThRZ8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: klimpong@gmail.com
Reply-To: till@php.net
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikhAAnvRd6ib2Nvu6bfm2ZO28qTe3O7WO2uOBGI@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikhAAnvRd6ib2Nvu6bfm2ZO28qTe3O7WO2uOBGI@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:34:26 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTilOmoxeyILGYQNxyUFMkR3kXjIhelgb1W67-QV6@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CouchDB Partitioning Proposal
From: till <till@php.net>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Rob,

the rest of us is missing the earlier part of the discussion. :D Or
maybe the reply is broken and I didn't get sorted to the original
email...

Btw, if interested in the partitioning, etc. - free free to subscribe
to the lounge mailinglist:
http://groups.google.com/group/couchdb-lounge

Till

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Rob Stewart
<robstewart57@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Randall,
>
> With a response time like that, efficiency is your strong point.
>
>
> First of all, seeing as through there are a number of =93solutions=94, it=
's
> clear that there are positives to come from a fully distributed CouchDB
> database. So I am not put off by that.
>
>
> Next, you suggest potential like solution as Cassandra and Dynamo. I'd te=
nd
> to agree, as these are stable distributed systems. On saying that, Cassan=
dra
> doesn't use Erlang (as a Java implementation), though it adopted the
> flexible column layout from Google's BigTable. I've also had a look at
> MongoDB, which is a C++ implementation, but with similar goals as CouchDB
> (document-oriented database). They are currently working on database
> partitioning, though it's in its alpha stages, in version 1.5.3. I imagin=
e
> that MongoDB could be a good design guide for CouchDB in the future shoul=
d
> its sharding implementation matures.
>
>
> In a slightly unrelated note, can I point you to a paper published in
> February, 2010 - =93Key/Value Datastores Comparison in AppScale=94. Brief=
ly,
> AppScale is a open source drop-in replacement for Google's App Engine, an=
d
> provides API's to Cloud based web applications (typicall), and at the
> backend that have plugged in their app API's to the API's of 7 distribute=
d
> databases (including Cassandra and MongoDB). What are the chances of
> attaching CouchDB to the AppScale API's ?
>
>
> My final point is Scalaris. (Google =93Reliable Transactional P2P Key/Val=
ue
> Store=94). Like CouchDB, it is a P2P datastore, implemented in Erlang. Ap=
pears
> to be similar in design and implementation to CouchDB, to me? It uses Cho=
rd#
> to storing and retreiving key/values in nodes. It seemingly has support f=
or
> Heterogeneous hardware clusters, and it currently uses an in-memory
> disctionary for database stores, though using Mnesia has been suggested.
>
>
> Is that enough, to generate discussion, Randall ?
>
>
>
> Rob Stewart
>