CouchDB Weekly News, July 24, 2014

Major Discussions

Vote (ongoing): Official CouchDB Bylaws (see thread)

The vote on the official CouchDB bylaws started on Monday, July 21 (see initial email). According to feedback, the bylaws were updated on July 22, it’s now being voted on this revised, current version of the bylaws and the vote is still in progress. Binding votes can be casted by CouchDB Project Management Committee (PMC) members. Still, as this is the first vote of its kind, and this document is foundational to our decision-making process in the future, the CouchDB PMC is asking all active committers to cast voluntary, non-binding votes as well. All votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, July 27, 2014.

Progress in work on Fauxton (see GitHub)

The work on the Fauxton implementation is going on and making good progress in preparation for CouchDB 2.0. It has just been merged in the new Fauxton sidebar redesign:

If you want to take a closer look: you’ll find the discussion and screenshots here.

Optimizing views (see thread)

Question: a CouchDB user has a simple user document containing fields such as gender, age and dates. They want to request these documents by age, or gender, or dates or a mix of these criteria. Is it more efficient to create a single view containing several emits, or to create several views, each of them containing one emit statement?


  • Creating several views may be better, since each one will be slightly faster to search.
  • Also, with one view, it can be easy to get mixed up between different types of keys.
  • Multiple views also allows to split them across design documents, which means they can be built independently and in parallel.
  • Regarding the specific use case described in the question, this user falls in the field of multi-dimensional queries, which CouchDB isn’t suited for. The solution generally is to use couchdb-lucene or even elasticsearch or something similar.

How many views per desgin doc in CouchDB? (see thread)

Question: Is it better to define one view per design doc? If I have e.g. 8 views for a given person design doc, would they better be placed in one single doc or breaked into smaller units?


  • The answer heavily depends on the specific use case. In general, one can
    split views that are slightly slower to process into separate design documents so that they may be run in parallel.  In the case of a query that
    requires a (re)build (e.g. no stale=ok or update_after), then this also
    means that one only has to wait for the one view to finish.
  • The smaller unit will save a lot of trouble, especially when updating the code of large views.
  • On the other hand, if the views are re-indexed independently, then each task is reading the documents out of the database. Whereas if the views are in the same design document, the documents only get read once and then passed to each view’s map function. This may be faster, but also depends on details of the view engine used.

Releases in the CouchDB Universe

Opinions and other News in the CouchDB Universe

Use Cases, Questions and Answers

no public answer yet:

For more new questions and answers about CouchDB, see these search results.

Get involved!

If you want to get into working on CouchDB:

  • We have an infinite number of open contributor positions on CouchDB. Submit a pull request and join the project!
  • Do you want to help moving the CouchDB docs translation forward? We’d love to have you in our L10n team! See our current status and languages we’d like to provide CouchDB docs in on this page. If you’d like to help, don’t hesitate to contact the L10n mailing list on or ping Andy Wenk (awenkhh on IRC).

We’d be happy to have you!


Job opportunities for people with CouchDB skills

Time to relax!

… and also in the news

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s