|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
references needed here
references needed here
- theoretical basis
In February 2008, it became an Apache Incubator project and the license was changed to use the Apache License rather than the restrictive and cumbersome GPL.
seems to contain some pretty subjective and for the subject unnecessary comments about the GPL. If this is supposed to be a quote it should be rewritten to make that clear, otherwise "restrictive and cumbersome" should IMHO be removed. The URL referenced only seems to be about the project being accepted by the Apache Foundation. Comments? Tadanaranu (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I think you can change that I wouldn't mind a more neutral tone here. (jchris) --126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Creating a database is simple—just issue the following command:
curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/wiki
I puzzled over this a bit (why does this article on a database engine mention "wiki"?). I suspect this means that the database created will be named "wiki", but I have no experience to confirm this. If I'm right, I suggest the wording:
Creating a database is simple—to create a database named "wiki", just issue the following command:
curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/wiki
I haven't actually made the change, since I don't know what I'm talking about. But at least my confusion is authoritative ;-)
- Yes, "wiki" is the name of the database. I've gone and made this section slightly clearer by putting the examples into a table. Appreciate feedback. ---TimClicks (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
hard to read
this main paragraph is IMHO hard to read;
Like other Document-oriented database systems, such as Lotus Notes, CouchDB is not a Relational Database Management System. Instead of storing data in rows and columns, the database manages a collection of JSON documents (early versions of CouchDB used XML). As a result, it is often compared with column-oriented datastores like Google's BigTable; however, CouchDB is not a column-oriented store, since the documents in a collection need not share a schema. Aggregate functions and filters are computed in parallel as in MapReduce, rather than at query time (although queries may introduce new aggregate functions, which execute on the existing documents in parallel).
I'd propose the following;
Aggregate functions and filters are computed in parallel as in MapReduce, rather than at query time. Queries may introduce new aggregate functions, which execute on the existing documents in parallel.
What it is not CouchDB is not a column-oriented store,like Google's BigTable, since the documents in a collection need not share a schema. CouchDB is not a column-oriented store or Relational Database Management System.
I found the main paragraph easy to understand and I like it the way it is. It probably depends on whether you come from a relational database background. I do, and the author apparently assumes most readers do too. Since relational has been the dominant paradigm for three decades, this is a reasonable assumption. Maybe in five years it will be less so, but we can change the article then. Sluggoster (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not happy about the Map-Reduce bit; is the CouchDB version a reimplementation of Googles original, like Hadoop?
According to the MapReduce article, Google did not invent it. Google modified an existing algorithm, enough so that there's a question whether Google should have changed the name too. So whether the article should mention MapReduce hinges on *which* MapReduce. I'm not enough of an expert to comment on that; just wanted to point it out. Sluggoster (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Acronym and more information
- Couch == Cluster of unreliable commodity hardware.
- Source: http://chaosradio.ccc.de/cre125.html (very interesting podcast about CouchDB in German with Jan Lehnardt and Alexander Lang)
List of Dependencies
Why is there so much marketing blah in this article?
e.g. the Jacob Kaplan-Moss quote and the context in which it is given.
or this oxymoron: "[...] grants unprecedented control compared to most databases."
It is nice that the authors are fans of the product, but may they please channel that subjectivity to their personal / corporate blog or such instead? The current article could give the impression that the product needs cheap tricks to get more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
CouchDB and Couchbase
Is CouchDB being abandoned for Couchbase Server? I read most devs from CouchDB are now Couchbase developers. And the Couchbase site gives a lot of emphasis on Membase tech (memcache) rather than the CouchDB paradigm (A RESTful MVCC document database over HTTP). What exactly is the dynamic in place right now? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah this has finally happened, damian had a lot of friction with the apache org what and he has now left couchdb. look here http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/CouchDB-creator-distances-self-from-Apache-project-1404041.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, CouchDB is not abandoned. It is moving in parallel with Couchbase. --TimClicks (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Mike and I work for Cloudant. I'd like to propose adding a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigCouch here under the "See also" section. Our database service is built on BigCouch -- the open-source fork of CouchDB that Cloudant created and maintains -- which our engineers are contributing back to the Apache CouchDB project. Cloudant's Wikipedia page includes a reference to CouchDB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudant, so I thought a reference to BigCouch would make sense here.
Of course I have a COI, so I wanted to do the right thing and submit this to the talk page. As far as I can tell, though, most of the open-source databases listed under "See also" aren't related to CouchDB as closely as BigCouch is. Thanks for considering my suggestion. Mbroberg (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)