CouchDB has a worse performance than AWS S3
March 08, 2017

CouchDB has a worse performance than AWS S3

Josh Stapp | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 2 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

Overall Satisfaction with CouchDB

It held a million SERP pages gathered each day. That information was then parsed to find ads on each page. Building the views and actually deleting files with a compact took ages. On a large AWS server, it took about a day to delete information for one day which has to happen every 6 months. We replaced CouchDB a year ago with AWS S3 and S3 has been amazing. We keep track of the metadata to pull S3 files in our own data base.
  • Can host on your own server
  • Views can do complex things to show subsets of data
  • Install was easy
  • SUPER SLOW. We do tons of data and S3 and just using the file system were both way faster
  • Using views is too complex
  • Stores entire DB as 1 file, good luck when it becomes many TB
  • It wasted our time.
  • It was easier to switch to AWS S3 from couchDB than it was to switch to couchDB from a filesystem so it set us up for that.
S3 blew this out of the water, we can get over 30 files a second, almost no failures, auto backed up, don't need our own server, and a much simpler interface with PHP Laravel.
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.
If you want to do more than just storing files on the server, need to share them over the net and not use S3 then couchDB might work out. If you need something with performance and are writing 100GB daily, CouchDB is gonna have a hard time, particularly when you want to start actually deleting with compact rather than their delete that just soft deletes.