On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Ryan Mohr <[email protected]> wrote: > Rethink caught my interest a little while back too. Looks like a well > 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 support > master-master replication. See this thread for some background: > https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/1019#issuecomment-19573253 > > Both databases are "distributed" but in different respects. CouchDB is > "distributed" in the same way git is "distributed" (eg we're all equals). > RethinkDB is "distributed" in the scaling sense (sharding / cluster-wide > 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… > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Mark Deibert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @Jim: That _is_ interesting. I read a bit of it, will read more later. So >> far it seems like Mongo and Couch had a baby. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Jim Klo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Some friends passed this on to me - looks interesting. Wonder if anyone >>> here has any idea how it compares to CouchDB? >>> >>> http://rethinkdb.com >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> - Jim >>> >>> Jim Klo >>> Senior Software Engineer >>> SRI International >>> t: @nsomnac >>> >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
