Can you clarify this? What exactly is it here that couchdb let's you do that mongo doesn't? Is "master" merely a conceptual label, or do you actually configure couch differently when it acts as a "slave"?
Sent from my iPhone On 2011-04-14, at 9:59 AM, Cory Zue <[email protected]> wrote: > Master - Master replication > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Robert Newson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 'Unlimited document size" - Not true. >> "Atomic Bulk Operations" -- Not in the sense you probably mean. >> >> B. >> >> 2011/4/14 Daniel Itaboraí <[email protected]>: >>> I'm trying to come up with some of CouchDB's advantages over MongoDB. >> Mongo >>> seems to have some advantages on easier "queriability" and overall speed >>> (this is really an understatement, but I´m looking forward for the snappy >>> compression and the NIF interface stuff). >>> >>> >>> So far, I've come up with the following: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Crash Proof durability (not having to replicate to achieve durability >> as >>> a best practice) >>> - >>> >>> Changes feed (for doing real time analytics, for example) >>> - >>> >>> Incremental map/reduce >>> - >>> >>> Concurrent reads during writes (no global server write lock, even if it >>> is a fast one) >>> - >>> >>> Unlimited document size >>> - >>> >>> Linked Documents in views >>> - >>> >>> Server side programmability (shows, lists, update handlers, validation >>> functions). >>> >>> - Atomic Bulk Operations >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd love to hear some more or even be corrected when necessary, but I >> feel >>> that for the uninitiated, it is hard to fully understand the strengths >> and >>> weaknesses of both products, as well as the operational implications of >>> each. Couch's weaknesses, unfortunately, seems to be a bit more evident >> at >>> first, despite it being a rock solid technology. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> ps:. I had posted this to r/couchdb over at reddit, but that seems like a >>> wasteland these days. >>> >>
