Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 216.139.236.158 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of ithkuil@gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: ithkuil <ithkuil@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Message-ID: <1283744960601-5501938.post@n2.nabble.com>
Subject: BigCouch vs. CouchDB Lounge vs. Cassandra
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


What advantages does BigCouch have over Lounge?  Lounge seems fairly simple
which is a big plus, but since Cloudant is using BigCouch in their
commercial product that looks like a bigger plus.

Do either of these solutions take advantage of new features like replication
filters?

What is the direction of internal CouchDB development in regards to
"complete" partitioning functionality?  Is the need for Lounge or BigCouch
(for many use cases) really a clue that if I need a completely partitioned
distributed database I should look at something like Cassandra (do not
like)?

I'm sorry if you are tired of answering this question.  Please consider just
ignoring it until you are in a really good mood.  That could be two weeks
down the line if you like, or never.  Also, I know this could be on the user
list, but I am asking here because I want to know what CouchDB internal
developers think of the options and the direction for the future.

Also, here is a tiny virtual representation of me which you can imagine
stabbing in the eye with a tiny pencil, if that helps:

 O
\|/
 |
/ \

-- 
View this message in context: http://couchdb-development.1959287.n2.nabble.com/BigCouch-vs-CouchDB-Lounge-vs-Cassandra-tp5501938p5501938.html
Sent from the CouchDB Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.