Comments on: Bulk Inserts: MongoDB vs CouchDB vs ArangoDB (Dec 2014)

By: fceller

fceller — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:27:00 +0000

In reply to CoDEmanX. We will definitely do this.

By: CoDEmanX

CoDEmanX — Fri, 29 May 2015 14:40:00 +0000

MongoDB 3.0 is out and comes with a new storage engine, I think it’s a good time to benchmark ArangoDB 2.6 against it!

By: Claudius Weinberger

Claudius Weinberger — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:13:00 +0000

In reply to Steve Howe.

Can you share with more information about your benchmarks? Would be great. Just send me an email to claudius@arangodb.com

By: Steve Howe

Steve Howe — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:12:00 +0000

In reply to Ted Wood. Only to name a few: joins, graphs, transactions, query language, http api, data compression (to be added on Mongo 3.0 I've heard), mvcc. But my benchmarks show greater differences then the numbers above (MongoDB being faster), and MongoDB has GridFS (which I like), and better sharding support. Oh well. Can't be happy on *everything*.

By: Thomas Schmidts

Thomas Schmidts — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:02:00 +0000

In reply to Ted Wood.

Thank you 🙂

If you have any questions regarding ArangoDB don’t hesitate to ask us on googlegroups or github

By: Ted Wood

Ted Wood — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:07:00 +0000

I only learned of ArangoDB today. I’m currently a MongoDB user, which has replaced many years of primarily using MySQL. Based on the above performance, it looks like there’s no huge advantage for me to adopt Arango, but the query language is definitely interesting. I’ll be keeping my eyes on this project in case it brings an advantage to the table that Mongo doesn’t have. Good work folks.

By: danielwertheim

danielwertheim — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:32:00 +0000

Would be interesting to see a compare, with random reads and writes, and more interestingly, durable writes.