> 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:
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
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.