I was about to post some of what Paul just did On mobile devices the bottlenecks are in CPU and flash storage, erlang (and therefore couch) dont have a true idle state, but they do very well at limiting battery usage on devices, the Android version is now down to 4/5 MB of flash storage which is comparatively small (adobe flash takes up 20MB)
The phones do generally have a lot of storage to spare, which is where couch keeps its data, and as both replies have already said, the typical use case is for a small subset of a users data. Cheers Dale On 30 June 2011 01:50, Jens Alfke <j...@mooseyard.com> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Zdravko Gligic wrote: > > > In many places I have read how Erlang runs on small devices and how > > (as a result) it is very frugal with resources. I think that I have > > read that or at least something to that effect. > > I’m not an Erlang expert, but the “typical” use-case Erlang was designed > for was running Ericsson’s telecom switches, which are not small devices. > The resource advantage it has is very lightweight parallelism, so you can > run tens of thousands of ‘processes’ at once without consuming huge amounts > of RAM in stack space. > > > Whenever I come across such CouchDB resources related postings, I keep > > thinking about all of those Couches on all of those mobile devices (at > > least in all of those presentations and slides) and asking my self > > "how do they do that" ? > > A mobile device is typically going to use CouchDB to store personal-sized > data sets, like your to-do list or phone book or bug queue, or your save > state in a game. And it’s probably going to have one client at a time, > connected by loopback on localhost, sometimes making a single sync > connection to an upstream server database. > > In other words, it’s not going to be serving a million-document corporate > database to thousands of clients simultaneously. > > For those sort of workloads, CouchDB runs fine on a mobile device, > especially if the client compacts the database frequently. > > SQLite might be a good comparison — you could use it to manage very large > databases [although maybe not so well as MySQL or Postgres] and for that > purpose you’ll want a good amount of RAM and disk space. But for small data > sets, it fits fine into embedded devices like iPhones and even microwave > ovens. > > —Jens
