[jethroalias97]

It's interesting that couchdb gets little love (as evidenced by google trends), but it has document storage by index, easy enough to install, copy on write so has no global lock, sharding with bigcouch, and all client access is entirely REST... it may be couch is a little hard to grok, I dunno.

[rkalla]

It isnt packaged and marketed as cleanly. It takes hunting and learning on your own to get good with couch, and map reduce is no where as easy to get started with as mongo queries (although the addition of unql may improve things next year).

Also there is no single, central steward and authority on couch. All of this stymies traction and confidence even though the tech is great.

[jethroalias97]

This is true. I think couchdb tries to be all things to all people rather than just focusing on being a great data store. It's a database like mongo, it's a mobile database like sqlite, you can use it to host apps with couchapp, you can use it as a map-reduce cluster like hadoop, etc. I would rather have just a solid no-sql database that solves that problem. I like couch better than mongo for the reasons I mentioned, but I know couch also has problems and still haven't found a good third option.

[olefoo]

Which all sounds rather like Postgres. It's harder to use because you have to know what you're doing, and it's not as popular even though it's better on some axes that are significant if you're building something solid.

[wisty]

Couch doesn't have great documentation, and doesn't have official native client drivers. Oh, and it's slow (though you can tune it, and it doesn't crumble under load).