What users are saying about
26 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
25 Ratings
26 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9 out of 100

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
25 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.5 out of 100

Likelihood to Recommend

CouchDB

Great for REST API development, if you want a small, fast server that will send and receive JSON structures, CouchDB is hard to beat. Not great for enterprise-level relational database querying (no kidding). While by definition, document-oriented databases are not relational, porting or migrating from relational, and using CouchDB as a backend is probably not a wise move as it's reliable, but It may not always be highly available.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore [formerly (MemSQL)] is very well suited for places- where the components are processing very large amounts of data and requires very low latency.- Columnstore compression of data reduces the time to respond. Compression resulted in quick responses which are not achieved using the other DB tools.- The concept of Rowstore and implementation on frequently used tables results in support of high OLTP.Not suited/less appropriate- The In-memory(Rowstore) and col-store does not share the same language compatibility. When required the transition form other table type more efforts are required.- SingleStore DB (formerly MemSQL) connection between AWS cloud failed when partitioning is higher for data processing.- Administration is sometime bit confusing when providing layered access to different teams.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Feature Rating Comparison

NoSQL Databases

CouchDB
7.9
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Performance
CouchDB
8.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Availability
CouchDB
8.5
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Concurrency
CouchDB
8.5
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Security
CouchDB
6.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Scalability
CouchDB
8.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Data model flexibility
CouchDB
7.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Deployment model flexibility
CouchDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

Pros

CouchDB

  • It can replicate and sync with web browsers via PouchDB. This lets you keep a synced copy of your database on the client-side, which offers much faster data access than continuous HTTP requests would allow, and enables offline usage.
  • Simple Map/Reduce support. The M/R system lets you process terabytes of documents in parallel, save the results, and only need to reprocess documents that have changed on subsequent updates. While not as powerful as Hadoop, it is an easy to use query system that's hard to screw up.
  • Sharding and Clustering support. As of CouchDB 2.0, it supports clustering and sharding of documents between instances without needing a load balancer to determine where requests should go.
  • Master to Master replication lets you clone, continuously backup, and listen for changes through the replication protocol, even over unreliable WAN links.
Sean Lang | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • Ease of use (installation, managed service, pipelines)
  • Hybrid configuration (on-premise & cloud), analytical and transactional workload
  • ANSI SQL as a standard
  • Runs on any major cloud platform
Erik Fransen | TrustRadius Reviewer

Cons

CouchDB

  • NoSQL DB can become a challenge for seasoned RDBMS users.
  • The map-reduce paradigm can be very demanding for first-time users.
  • JSON format documents with Key-Value pairs are somewhat verbose and consume more storage.
Johanes Siregar | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • Does not provide adequate support for data discovery apps, i.e. Power BI.
  • It would be great to have a native load balancing component for dealing with aggregator failure. Otherwise having a Child Aggregator becomes optional since not all the customers can afford an external balancing solution and does not feel confortable with switching between aggregators manually.
  • They used to have certifications and training in development and administration. That is very important to have, since other competitors does provide access to those sort of things and although they have free tutorials/videos, that doesn't provide an in-depth understanding.
Diego Montúfar | TrustRadius Reviewer

Likelihood to Renew

CouchDB

CouchDB 9.0
Based on 9 answers
Because our current solution S3 is working great and CouchDB was a nightmare. The worst is that at first, it seemed fine until we filled it with tons of data and then started to create views and actually delete.
Josh Stapp | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 5.0
Based on 1 answer
I still want to see the performance about using latest version of spark and memsql. About renewal, if there is a new and better version of spark-memsql connector, then maybe.
Tianwen Chu | TrustRadius Reviewer

Usability

CouchDB

CouchDB 8.0
Based on 1 answer
Couchdb is very simple to use and the features are also reduced but well implemented. In order to use it the way its designed, the ui is adequate and easy. Of course, there are some other task that can't be performed through the admin ui but the minimalistic design allows you to use external libraries to develop custom scripts
victor pease solano | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.7
Based on 6 answers
[Until it is] supported on AWS ECS containers, I will reserve a higher rating for SingleStore. Right now it works well on EC2 and serves our current purpose, [but] would look forward to seeing SingleStore respond to our urge of feature in a shorter time period with high quality and security.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Support Rating

CouchDB

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.7
Based on 6 answers
Very responsive to trouble tickets - Often, I think, the SingleStore's monitoring systems have already alerted the engineers by the time I get around to writing a ticket (about 10 - 20 mins after we see a problem). I feel like things are escalated nicely and SingleStore takes resolving trouble tickets seriously. Also SingleStore follows up after incidents to with a post mortem and actionable takaways to improve the product. Very satisfied here.
John Barry | TrustRadius Reviewer

Implementation Rating

CouchDB

CouchDB 9.0
Based on 2 answers
it support is minimal also hw requirements. Also for development, we can have databases replicated everywhere and the replication is automagical. once you set up the security and the rules for replication, you are ready to go. The absence of a model let you build your app the way you want it
victor pease solano | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

CouchDB

It has been 5+ years since we chose CouchDB. We looked an MongoDB, Cassandra, and probably some others. At the end of the day, the performance, power potential, and simplicity of CouchDB made it a simple choice for our needs. No one should use just because we did. As I said early, make sure you understand your problems, and find the right solution.Some random reading that might be useful:http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theoremhttps://www.couchbase.com/nosql-resources/why-nosql\https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed
Dave Lundberg | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

I guess the main difference is how the memory is used for stacking and storing data until it reaches the final destination, the performance is awesome compared with others and when you have a real time business with a certain complexity. The development team would be more familiarized with the SQL environment and there’s practically a zero learning curve, when you compare this with other data bases you’re going to find that there’s a huge saving in time and money.
Jacob Ortega | TrustRadius Reviewer

Return on Investment

CouchDB

  • It has saved us hours and hours of coding.
  • It is has taught us a new way to look at things.
  • It has taught us patience as the first few weeks with CouchDB were not pleasant. It was not easy to pick up like MongoDB.
LeVar Berry | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • License cost is lower than many of its competitors.
  • Requires very little administration. We are getting by without even hiring an admin.
  • Integrating the pipelines and the DB engine simplifies the solution architecture, which means less infrastructure is needed, less license cost, and shorter development cycle.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Screenshots

Pricing Details

CouchDB

General

Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No

CouchDB Editions & Modules

Additional Pricing Details

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

General

Free Trial
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
Optional

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Editions & Modules

Edition
OnDemand0.691
  1. per hour
Additional Pricing Details

Rating Summary

Likelihood to Recommend

CouchDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.8

Likelihood to Renew

CouchDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
5.0

Usability

CouchDB
8.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.7

Support Rating

CouchDB
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.7

Implementation Rating

CouchDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

Add comparison