|
|
|
|
|
by karmelapple
1702 days ago
|
|
It’s more scalable in theory, and I talked its praises in a different comment, but our team has hit scaling issues with our one-user-per-database approach. It was a mess to sort out, but Cloudant support was very helpful. Our major issue: we write many small documents, and we write them over every user’s database fairly frequently. And Cloudant’s default settings don’t like that with a one-user-per-database approach. In fact, they discourage anyone from the one-db-per-user approach these days: https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/cloudant-best-and-worst-pract... That blog post calls it an anti-pattern, but I would respectfully disagree. It is an absolutely great pattern to keep a native app and a web app in sync across multiple devices with intelligent conflict resolution. A solution was to reduce the number of shards that a database was split out over, since our database’s data is pretty small overall and we didn’t need each database split out so much across our cluster. |
|