I saw this and thought it was kind of mixed, but clearly not positive. I'm wondering about the use case and how it was put together, whether it was tested adequately under load, etc..
I've been prototyping some stuff [1] that runs on a desktop and if you look at these screenshots of a modified Futon, I'm doing type ahead searching that is very fast, and this runs fast even while the search index is being built, other dbs are being replicated/compacted/etc.. So yea, I'd love to see a discussion or post-mortem of what the issues were. Is it just too early a version? Cheers, Bob [1] http://dionne.posterous.com/bitcask-bitstore-and-fti-in-couchdb On May 14, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Wout Mertens wrote: > Hi group, > > I noticed with sadness the rather disappointing review of the DesktopCouch > feature of Ubuntu at Ars Technica: > > http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/05/lucid-dream-ars-reviews-ubuntu-1004.ars/9 > > "The take-away point is that the amount of latency and CPU overhead that > DesktopCouch introduces is just not conducive to building responsive desktop > applications that run on a wide range of ordinary consumer hardware. In cases > where the number of records is in the tens of thousands, it's more sensible > to use SQLite and use DesktopCouch only for the parts that need to be > synchronized." > > I wonder where the lag is introduced. DesktopCouch is, as I understand it, a > Python API for storing and synchronizing user data like settings and chat > logs, using CouchDB as the backend. > > Is CouchDB too slow to use on a desktop system as a desktop database? > > Wout.
