4 ms·

Seriously, now you are just spreading FUD. You even said a few posts up that there WAS durability. With respect to the speed of writes, MongoDB has, at least,

• rdtsc 15y ago
  > You even said a few posts up that there WAS durability. When did I say that? Just cut-and-paste my phrase if you are replying to it. I don't remember saying it. > With respect to the speed of writes, MongoDB has, at least, three other things going for it [that CouchdB doesn't]: 1) the journal file is append only, 2) updates can often be done in-place, 3) a binary protocol. I never said MongoDB wasn't faster. It is in most situations. I was criticizing their hand-wavy attitude and what I perceived was shady marketing when it came to their trade-off. That turned me off and made me look for another product. Besides, what exactly do those implementation features mean? CouchDB has an append-only BTRee so it doesn't need journalling: http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/btree.html http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/btree.html Updates-in place are great but they again are a trade-off. Now you also need a journal. Binary protocol -- ok. That probably makes a significant difference in some case. I would actually like CouchDB to have a msgpack or protobuf driver. Not saying MongoDB is worse or better, it just works differently.