Apache CouchDB vs. RavenDB

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.

Incentivized

If you're a.NET developer searching for a system other than SQL Server for business assessment, then you must try RavenDB. RavenDB is a fantastic document-oriented system that has been specifically developed to work with all.NET or Windows systems. Developers are continually working on such systems to eliminate their flaws while also providing a few benefits. We must refresh ourselves on a regular basis since the free software system is like an open area where anybody may stand up with a brilliant solution to the issue. RavenDB is absolutely worth a look

• 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.

Incentivized

• Document Database - no Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch
• ACID support that is optimized for performance
• Can be easily integrated into automated tests (unit tests)
• Easily configurable via C# code
• Comes directly with RavenStudio - no SSMS or SQL Developer required
• In general low footprint when it comes to memory and disk consumption
• Useful safety nets for new developers - e.g. by default an exception is thrown when you make too many requests within a session

• 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.

Incentivized

• The documentation is very good, but it's sometimes hard to find the topic I'm looking for.
• Updating references is done manually. It would be nice if there was a feature to help with that. I'm not sure that's even possible though.

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.

Incentivized

We've had an excellent experience using RavenDB. Internally we are testing the newer features in 5.0 such as time series, which will effect the con specified previously dependent on the real world performance. We foresee that BattleCrate will continue to use RavenDB as we grow.

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

Incentivized

Really good .NET client that is very easy to use. The management studio is excellent and puts anything that Microsoft or Oracle have to shame. Very quick to develop with once the complexity hurdle has been overcome. Initially using it can be a bit painful until you fully grasp the event sourced nature of the indexing.

The support is really fast and flexible. Since one single working day, we got a response to our first request, only 4 days later we got a technical demonstration for our complete developer team to get in touch with raven and its performance. Also during our development, we got a quick response to questions.

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

Incentivized

RavenFS changed along the way and made us change the codes.

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-theorem https://www.couchbase.com/nosql-resources/why-nosql\ https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed

Incentivized

The given alternatives are also powerful and really good noSQL databases but the highest availability of RavenDB allows me/us to know it a lot better. RavenDB is encrypted by default wherever we use it in production and it has a high level of documents compression.

• 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.

Incentivized

• RavenDB has saved my customers a lot of money with their cloud services' tiered model. The database is able to grow with the project/company and can start out small at a low cost.
• RavenDB is free for three nodes and three CPUs, which makes it great for development scenarios. You're able to start rapidly building applications without having to worry about licensing.
• Scaling out has allowed us to use three small cloud servers when starting out and get the performance and throughput of a single larger server.