3 ms·
It is/was nice, just an early NoSQL DB with a lot of interesting features. Just better options came about to take its mindshare. We used it about 11 years ago
by gedy 5y ago
It is/was nice, just an early NoSQL DB with a lot of interesting features. Just better options came about to take its mindshare. We used it about 11 years ago for an internal marketing CMS system and the replication and attachment support were a good fit.
- rat9988 5y agoWhat betters options would you have in mind? Asking from curiosity, I don't follow this space closely.
- gedy 5y agoIt's been a while, but seems like many people wanted something simpler like MongoDB for a NoSQL document database. CouchDBs map/reduce queries were hard to get people's heads around, many people didn't need attachments, etc.
- tehbeard 5y agoWhat's out there with a better client device sync option? This is something I've been looking for for a few PWAs that need to operate on bad/no network, and most other solutions are build your own entire sync setup, or magic-in-a-box you can't tune. With Couch/pouch, I can sync with a filter/several filters to make sure the subset of data I need is on the device.
- gedy 5y agoYeah agreed that's really cool. Closest I've seen is Apollo client, but to your point you have a lot less fine grained control.
- jFriedensreich 5y agoI would highly object to "better options came about". I am not debating maybe a better fit to your specific problems came along, but in general case of the sweet spot for couchdb there are no obvious better alternatives. The sweet spot being "a schemalesss json database with a rest api and first level support for master-master and online/offline replication that values your data safety and reliability first and everything else second."
- gedy 5y agoYes what I meant by "better options" was for the devs just looking for a schemaless/document NoSQL database. They weren't needing CouchDB's sweet spot basically. The project I mentioned was great fit though.