2 ms·
Not being that is one thing, but (at least in the past?) they implemented updates as non-atomic delete and insert, which is just crazy bad. It's one thing not t
by iforgotpassword 8y ago
Not being that is one thing, but (at least in the past?) they implemented updates as non-atomic delete and insert, which is just crazy bad. It's one thing not to be ACID but having a query not return some entry at all because it's being concurrently updated is... an interesting design choice.
Edit: link https://blog.meteor.com/-654b6594a827 https://blog.meteor.com/-654b6594a827
- m_mueller 8y agoHence why CouchDB’s append-only approach had always been the better choice. Why Mongo ever became more popular still boggles my mind.
- ravenstine 8y agoI think that's because MongoDB makes far more claims around performance around big data than CouchDB does. CouchDB has always focused a lot more on features like having a built in REST-like API, replication, Fauxton, fault-tolerance, etc. There was also a lull where CouchDB wasn't seeing very much development, but that's changed since before the arrival of version 2.0. I wish CouchDB would see a little more popularity than it has, as I've found it(along with PouchDB) to be handy in a lot of projects.