We just published a white paper on RavenDB performance vs. Couchbase performance in a real customer scenario.
I had to check the results three times before I believed them. RavenDB is pretty awesome, but I had no idea it was that awesome.
The data set was reasonably big, 1.35 billion docs and the scenario we present is a real world one based on production load.
Some of the interesting details:
- RavenDB uses 1/3 of the disk space that Couchbase uses, but stores 3 times as much data.
- Operationally, RavenDB just worked, Couchbase needed 6 times the hardware to just scrape by. A single failure in Couchbase meant at least 15 – 45 minutes for the node to recover. Inducing failures in RavenDB brought the node back up in a few seconds.
- For queries, we pitted a Couchbase cluster with 96 cores and 384 GB RAM against single RavenDB node running on a Raspberry PI. RavenDB on the Pi was able to sustain better latencies at the 99 percentile handling twice as much load as Couchbase is able.
There are all sort of other goodies in the white paper and we went pretty deep into the overall architecture and impact of the difference design decisions.
As usual, we welcome your feedback.