Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CouchDB 3.0

blog.couchdb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#131

Post by janl »

billfruit wrote: post #115
newfeatureok wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In CouchDB 4.0 the backend of CouchDB will be switching to FoundationDB, which will have a 8MB limit, so they're preemptively making the change. You can remove the limit now if you'd like.

Yes, but how is a 8mb document size limit a good thing?

FoundationDB needs is a consistent (as per CAP) database, to make that work in a distributed fashion, there are limits on distributed transactions in size and time. CouchDB needs to adopt those in order to move to FoundationDB.

The 3.x series will be supported for a long time for folks who can’t move up. Until then, as others have stated, you can up the default limit.

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#132

Post by janl »

NDizzle wrote: post #95
newfeatureok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8MB is just the default, you can switch it back to 4GB if you want, but you won't have an easy time switching to 4.0 due to the 8MB limit imposed by FoundationDB.

It seems really odd to me that they are changing to an 8MB limit. "Document storage database" that can only hold 8MB per document. It can't hold full text output for a large documents... What am I missing here?

In CouchDB terms, you’d store data like this in attachments, not as raw JSON.

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#133

Post by janl »

yyyk wrote: post #114
hajile wrote: post #18

Reducing max document size from 4GB down to 8MB seems hyper-restrictive. For those interested, looks like the guts of CouchDB are going to be swapped out for FoundationDB. https://blog.couchdb.org/2020/02/26/the-road-to-couchdb-3-0-...

Couch/Pouch combination is really slow when document +attachment are too large. Based on my experience, Practical limit was more like 20-30Mb, and I'd suggest not even getting close to that. 8Mb simply recognizes reality.

That’s another great point, an exactly why we are doing this. It is a best practice already.

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#134

Post by janl »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #119
hajile wrote: post #18

Reducing max document size from 4GB down to 8MB seems hyper-restrictive. For those interested, looks like the guts of CouchDB are going to be swapped out for FoundationDB. https://blog.couchdb.org/2020/02/26/the-road-to-couchdb-3-0-...

That still exists? I thought apple bought them and shuttered them.

FoundationDB got re-released as an open source project: https://www.foundationdb.org/blog/foundationdb-is-open-sourc...

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#135

Post by janl »

johnchristopher wrote: post #52

> – Updated to modern JavaScript engine SpiderMonkey 60 Yes ^^ ! Congrats to the team. These people are some of the nicest and most supportive devs I know of in the OSS community (or whatev'). They show a great deal of patience in their slack channel and are always welcoming and answering stupid questions from idiots like me.

<3

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#136

Post by janl »

tbrock wrote: post #12

At this point why would you use CouchDB over something like MongoDB? Seriously asking... Over the past 5 years MongoDB has gotten a great storage engine, transactions, distributed transactions, multi master replication, first class change streams and is very very solid as a foundational piece of infrastructure you can rely on while CouchDB has languished. I can’t imagine reaching for it in my tool belt when I need a…

> At this point why would you use CouchDB over something like MongoDB?

They are very different databases. But since they have come up are around the same time and because they look very similar on the surface, you might think you chose between them.

But when you look more closely at detail decisions on the technical details, at almost every point, where CouchDB goes one way, Mongo went the other way.

I’m not saying either decisions are better or worse, it’s just that they are very different database that you should evaluate on their merits, not just superficially.

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#137

Post by janl »

jinjin2 wrote: post #129
newfeatureok wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason most people use CouchDB is because of the HTTP API and offline support with Couchbase Mobile and PouchDB. Doesn't CouchDB have most of those things already from 2.3?

MongoDB recently bought Realm which is an amazing mobile database with first class replication, so if I was starting a new project that also needs mobile I would definitely go with MongoDB.

last time I looked, realm did “last write wins” “conflict resolution”, which is just marketing speech for “randomly losing customer data”, which is something CouchDB decidedly works very hard to never ever do ;)

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#138

Post by janl »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #34
tbrock wrote: post #12

At this point why would you use CouchDB over something like MongoDB? Seriously asking... Over the past 5 years MongoDB has gotten a great storage engine, transactions, distributed transactions, multi master replication, first class change streams and is very very solid as a foundational piece of infrastructure you can rely on while CouchDB has languished. I can’t imagine reaching for it in my tool belt when I need a…

MongoDB has _suspiciously_ amazing SEO and marketing. CouchDB's by contrast is awful. As silly as that sounds as a reason to choose CouchDB it demonstrates where the respective company's priorities lie.

MongoDB raised $311M in funding and is now a publicly traded US corporation: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/mongodb-inc#section-...

CouchDB is a community-run Apache Software Foundation project (that has corporate contributors as well as individual contributors) at a much lower scale than MongoDB.

Of course MongoDB’s marketing is better, they are spending a lot of money on it. If you’d like to help out with CouchDB’s marketing, we can always use another helping hand :)

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#139

Post by janl »

couchdb_ouchdb wrote: post #103

I'm surprised to see so much love for CouchDB in this thread. I don't think it's been widely adopted in corporate america and has lost the war to MongoDB closed source or not. I joined a company where it's being used backing a mobile app with couch/pouch in production. We can't wait to get off of it. Writes are slow. Reads are worse. Having a DB per user is a scaling and backup nightmare. If you run into any issues,…

I sadly can’t name names, but rest assured the fortune 500 is heavily involved.

OTOH, publicly known big companies using CouchDB include Apple and IBM.

And I worked on a team that used CouchDB’s offline capability in the 2015 Ebola crisis in West Africa. That work also lead to the first Ebola vaccine ever.

That’s why we do CouchDB :)

Re: CouchDB 3.0

#140

Post by janl »

e12e wrote: post #11

Oh wow, this is great news. I though the project was effectively long dead. Is there a new/up-to-date "couchapp" too? > Default installations are now secure and locked down. More good news! Anyone have recent experience with couchdb? I see the (quickstart) docs use plain http - should one terminate ssl in front, eg with a recent version of haproxy?

We use https://github.com/jo/couchdb-bootstrap successfully.

CouchDB does SSL natively, but we do recommend HAProxy.

Post reply on HN