可以将文章内容翻译成中文,广告屏蔽插件可能会导致该功能失效(如失效，请关闭广告屏蔽插件后再试):

问题:

I am stuck between these two NoSQL databases.

In my project I will be creating a database within a database. For example, I need a solution to create dynamic tables.

So users can create tables with columns and rows. I think either MongoDB or CouchDB will be good for this, but I am not sure which one. I will also need efficient paging as well.

回答1:

Of C,A & P (Consistency, Availability & Partition tolerance) which 2 are more important to you? Quick reference, the Visual Guide To NoSQL Systems

MongodB : Consistency and Partition Tolerance
CouchDB : Availability and Partition Tolerance

A blog post, Cassandra vs MongoDB vs CouchDB vs Redis vs Riak vs HBase vs Membase vs Neo4j comparison has 'Best used' scenarios for each NoSQL database compared. Quoting the link,

MongoDB: If you need dynamic queries. If you prefer to define indexes, not map/reduce functions. If you need good performance on a big DB. If you wanted CouchDB, but your data changes too much, filling up disks.
CouchDB : For accumulating, occasionally changing data, on which pre-defined queries are to be run. Places where versioning is important.

A recent (Feb 2012) and more comprehensive comparison by Riyad Kalla,

MongoDB : Master-Slave Replication ONLY
CouchDB : Master-Master Replication

A blog post (Oct 2011) by someone who tried both, A MongoDB Guy Learns CouchDB commented on the CouchDB's paging being not as useful.

A dated (Jun 2009) benchmark by Kristina Chodorow (part of team behind MongoDB),

I'd go for MongoDB.

Hope it helps.

回答2:

The answers above all over complicate the story.

If you plan to have a mobile component, or need desktop users to work offline and then sync their work to a server you need CouchDB.
If your code will run only on the server then go with MongoDB

That's it. Unless you need CouchDB's (awesome) ability to replicate to mobile and desktop devices, MongoDB has the performance, community and tooling advantage at present.

回答3:

Very old question but it's on top of Google and I don't quite like the answers I see so here's my own.

There's much more to Couchdb than the ability to develop CouchApps. Most people use CouchDb in a classical 3-tiers web architecture.

In practice the deciding factor for most people will be the fact that MongoDb allows ad-hoc querying with a SQL like syntax while CouchDb doesn't (you've got to create map/reduce views which turns some people off even though creating these views is Rapid Application Development friendly - they have nothing to do with stored procedures).

To address points raised in the accepted answer : CouchDb has a great versionning system, but it doesn't mean that it is only suited (or more suited) for places where versionning is important. Also, couchdb is heavy-write friendly thanks to its append-only nature (writes operations return in no time while guaranteeing that no data will ever be lost).

One very important thing that is not mentioned by anyone is the fact that CouchDb relies on b-tree indexes. This means that whether you have 1 "row" or 20 billions, the querying time will always remain below 10ms. This is a game changer which makes CouchDb a low-latency and read-friendly database, and this really shouldn't be overlooked.

To be fair and exhaustive the advantage MongoDb has over CouchDb is tooling and marketing. They have first-class citizen tools for all major languages and platforms making the on-boarding easy and this added to their adhoc querying makes the transition from SQL even easier.

CouchDb doesn't have this level of tooling - even though there are many libraries available today - but CouchDb is exposed as an HTTP API and it is therefore quite easy to create a wrapper in your favorite language to talk with it. I personally like this approach as it avoids bloat and allows you to only take what you want (interface segregation principle).

So I'd say using one or the other is largely a matter of comfort and preference with their paradigms. CouchDb approach "just fits", for certain people, but if after learning about the database features (in the exhaustive official guide) you don't have your "hell yeah" moment, you should probably move on.

I'd discourage using CouchDb if you just want to use "the right tool for the right job". because you'll find out that you can't just use it that way and you'll end up being pissed and writing blog posts such as "Where are joins in CouchDb ?" and "Where is transaction management ?". Indeed Couchdb is - paradoxically - very transparent but at the same time requires a paradigm shift and a change in the way you approach problems to really shine (and really work).

But once you've done that it really pays off. I'd personally need very strong reasons or a major deal breaker on a project to choose another database, but so far I haven't met any.

回答4:

Ask this questions yourself? And you will decide your DB selection.

Do you need master-master? Then CouchDB. Mainly CouchDB supports master-master replication which anticipates nodes being disconnected for long periods of time. MongoDB would not do well in that environment.
Do you need MAXIMUM R/W throughput? Then MongoDB
Do you need ultimate single-server durability because you are only going to have a single DB server? Then CouchDB.
Are you storing a MASSIVE data set that needs sharding while maintaining insane throughput? Then MongoDB.
Do you need strong consistency of data? Then MongoDB.
Do you need high availability of database? Then CouchDB.
Are you hoping multi databases and multi tables/ collections? Then MongoDB
You have a mobile app offline users and want to sync their activity data to a server? Then you need CouchDB.
Do you need large variety of querying engine? Then MongoDB
Do you need large community to be using DB? Then MongoDB

回答5:

I summarize the answers found in that article:

http://www.quora.com/How-does-MongoDB-compare-to-CouchDB-What-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-each

MongoDB: Better querying, data storage in BSON (faster access), better data consistency, multiple collections

CouchDB: Better replication, with master to master replication and conflict resolution, data storage in JSON (human-readable, better access through REST services), querying through map-reduce.

So in conclusion, MongoDB is faster, CouchDB is safer.

Also: http://nosql.mypopescu.com/post/298557551/couchdb-vs-mongodb

回答6:

Be aware of an issue with sparse unique indexes in MongoDB. I've hit it and it is extremely cumbersome to workaround.

The problem is this - you have a field, which is unique if present and you wish to find all the objects where the field is absent. The way sparse unique indexes are implemented in Mongo is that objects where that field is missing are not in the index at all - they cannot be retrieved by a query on that field - {$exists: false} just does not work.

The only workaround I have come up with is having a special null family of values, where an empty value is translated to a special prefix (like null:) concatenated to a uuid. This is a real headache, because one has to take care of transforming to/from the empty values when writing/quering/reading. A major nuisance.

I have never used server side javascript execution in MongoDB (it is not advised anyway) and their map/reduce has awful performance when there is just one Mongo node. Because of all these reasons I am now considering to check out CouchDB, maybe it fits more to my particular scenario.

BTW, if anyone knows the link to the respective Mongo issue describing the sparse unique index problem - please share.

回答7:

I'm sure you can with Mongo (more familiar with it), and pretty sure you can with couch too.

Both are documented oriented (JSON-based) so there would be no "columns" but rather fields in documents -- but they can be fully dynamic.

They both do it you may want to look at other factors on which to use: other features you care about, popularity, etc. Google insights, indeed.com job posts would be ways to look at popularity.

You could just try it i think you should be able to have mongo running in 5 minutes.