Ask HN: Why is Couchbase Server under-represented here?
2 comments
I have built applications that uses couchbase both on server side and couchbase-lite on Android. Couchbase with the ability to sync between client and server replication is the best thing to happen and available free (community edition) today.
Unfortunately couchbase-server consumes lot of resource on the backend and it's heavy, which brings an entry of barrier from a start up point of view.
Unfortunately couchbase-server consumes lot of resource on the backend and it's heavy, which brings an entry of barrier from a start up point of view.
Do you have some numbers about the resource usage that you can share? 4GB minimum memory (16G recommended) is necessarily a heavy requirement given the wide variety of things the server does. CockroachDB may be similar to this, and my servers consume between 1-2GB memory usually.
This is true. Generally, you need at least 3 nodes for the smallest Couchbase cluster. At least that was true a couple of years ago.
Have wondered the same thing. But their strategy was enterprise-first as opposed to developer-first like some competitors.
Is there any reason for that? Is the technology not living up to the marketing? Is it not hipster enough?
It looks like a good technology stack with easy to use server administration and integrated features most app can use (e.g. full-text search). I am a bit surprised that it is not featured here.