News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rgbrgb on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @12:49PM (#2869080)
Basically I think this is pointing to mongo for replacing traditional website databases and couch for only special cases. Do you guys think this is fair? I haven't spent too much time with either but I'm a little bit suspicious because this is from mongodb.

Anybody know of any other direct comparisons between these?

Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rnewson on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @01:37PM (#2869283)
For my part (and I'm biased) a database that doesn't consider durability paramount shouldn't be considered a database at all.
Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rubyrescue on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:15PM (#2869460)
I don't consider redis durable for similar reasons as mongo - yet redis doesn't hide what it is or what it lacks in terms of durability... so it doesn't bother me that it isn't.

but mongo often downplays it's lack of durability, which makes me wary of using it or recommending it because people don't know how to use it.

Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rbranson on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:36PM (#2869558)
This is exactly the problem with MongoDB. It's practical use is a semi-durable, in-memory data store, but they advertise it as a data store of record that can be used for large, >RAM sets of any conceivable use case.
Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rdtsc on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:42PM (#2869596)
It seemed a bit dishonest seeing benchmarks that showed how MongoDB beats CouchDB in write-performance tests when there was no acknowledgement of write requests comming back to the client.

Not saying that MongoDB wouldn't be faster with full commits turn on, it is just that their design decision to pick that as the default and calling their product a 'database' seemed very strange at best, and dishonest at worst.

Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by rit on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @06:16PM (#2870452)
For the record: we (MongoDB) have a policy of not posting official Benchmarks. Could you clarify what benchmarks you are referring to that were posted and "dishonest"?

The only benchmarks we have ever done have been for internal testing comparisons between different versions.

The "Benchmarks" page on our site clarifies this policy: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Benchmarks

Previously there were several third party benchmarks on this page, which we recently took down to stand firmer on our benchmark policy. In the interest of full disclosure however, you may examine the page history to verify that we have always clarified these as unaffiliated third party sourced.

Re:Comparing Mongo DB and Couch DB by StavrosK on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:13PM (#2869455)
I am inclined to agree. I don't trust Mongo with my data, although I would consider it for things I don't mind losing. That is, if redis didn't exist.

Apart from that, I actually found the comparison fair and accurate.