3 ms·

> Syncing that local CouchDB to your web based CouchDB is very fast This is not true. When you compare the CouchDB replication with other replication protocols

> Syncing that local CouchDB to your web based CouchDB is very fast This is not true. When you compare the CouchDB replication with other replication protocols, it is slow. The reason is that CouchDB supports replication with many instances at the same time. This creates big overhead in handling revision trees. Many requests have to be made all the time. You can observe that by starting the PouchDB subproject in the comparison repo. Watch the network tab in dev tools. Another problem is that CouchDB does not support Websocket replication, everything is long polling and plain http requests. Other replications that only support many-clients-to-one-server are way faster. Both, on the initial load and on ongoing changes. This was the main reason why I build GraphQL replication for RxDB.

oblib 5y ago
>>This is not true. When you compare the CouchDB replication with other replication protocols, it is slow. That may be true but when a single user is working with an offline-first app connected to a CouchDB installed on their desktop pc that happens entirely in the background so they don't experience any lag. And while I've not done benchmark studies with CouchDB I have monitored the logs to watch those syncs and we're not talking painfully "slow" in real world use. It is reliable though. I've been using it for about 5 years now and it's been solid. And so has the work they've done to improve it. And I was not aware of RxDB, which is certainly interesting, so thank you for sharing that!