Couchbase Reviews

We manage our telecommunication application using the product. 

The product's most valuable features are its overall availability and robustness. It is highly available for support and does not impact our operations significantly during failures. It performs very well in terms of speed, particularly for write operations.

The platform's grouping features need improvement. Additionally, it supports only a few storage types, which presents challenges, particularly for I/O operations.

I have been working on Couchbase for the last two and a half years.

I have never encountered any stability issues for the product. 

Sometimes, the technical support team responds promptly and helps with incidents, but other times, they require multiple logs and take more time to provide root cause analysis.

Positive

The licensing cost of Couchbase is quite expensive compared to other databases.

The platform's migration process, including upgrades, is quite easy compared to other databases like PostgreSQL. 

I rate a six out of ten.

In the beginning, we used this solution to store configuration data. We had a system that we used for management for our platforms. We then needed a system that could help with configuration of platforms. We were looking at a couple of different options of how to store those configurations dynamically. We have 17 people that use this solution in total. 

It took us a while to figure out how to use this solution. 

I can input any kind of document into the solution and it is integrated using a dynamic API. This has been the most valuable aspect of using this solution. 

You do need something that will integrate with Couchbase separate to your front end application and we use Angular. Our APIs integrate with Couchbase using the SDKs that they have available. I mainly use their dot net SDK.

The scripting language for this solution could be improved. A big selling point is that they're like SQL server but there is still quite a lot of missing functionality. They are slowly adding additional functionality but without it, the solution ca be complex to use. 

Secondly, this solution does not function well on a Windows based server or infrastructure. Hosting it on a Windows server can max out your CPU and bring down your cluster. This is one of the main reasons that we stepped away from having that in this kind of environment as well as needing to buy a license for support. There is also a lack of documentation. 

We have been using this solution for three years. 

The challenging aspect is knowing how the indexes work and if you create buckets, knowing what kind of indexes to create to query your data. There are a number of different aspects that impact its stability. I would rate it a six out of ten for stability. 

This is a scalable solution. Adding nodes is very simple. I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

We have moved to using Elasticsearch which gives us flexibility that we did not get with a no SQL kind of structure. 

You can connect to Elasticsearch using AlloyDB for solutions like PowerBI. It also gives us more features in terms of monitoring. 

The initial setup was very easy, especially on Windows. The biggest aspect of the solution is tuning it and understanding how it behaves. If something happens, it drops and switches off all your nodes and you need a rebalance. The biggest difficulty with the platform out of the box is getting it to run in a stable way. You can run it or you can get it up and running on your local machine very quickly, but having that set up for a production environment is a different story.

I would rate the setup of the solution a seven out of ten. 

Initially, we used the open source version to see how it works and what the support is like before committing to an enterprise license. That's why a lot of companies go for Microsoft SQL server because you buy the licenses and get the support and have a community to help you. I wouldn't say Couchbase offers good value for money. 

We opted for a no SQL kind of data storage. We looked at Redis and MongoDB and opted for Couchbase because it had SQL integrations, programming language and scripting language.

I would rate Couchbase a seven out of ten. It's not a bad product but it depends what you're using to run it on. The time and effort that you need to spend learning the product and how to fine tune it wasn't worth it for us. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Initially we were using the on-premise Couchbase Server which was maintained by the organisation with assistance from a consultant from Couchbase. After they came up with the cloud version of Couchbase called Capella, it was decided to migrate there to reduce the maintenance cost and to take advantage of the advanced features the product offers. 

Couchbase Capella offered distinct advantages like ease of horizontal and vertical autoscaling, ease of querying using the SQL++ language (which is not hard to learn), and the flexibility it offers while being hosted in the cloud and being served by the parent company.

We moved from a relational database to a non-relational database, where there is no format for storage of data, no linking of different tables, and not too much effort is required in learning the query language. This has made data storage an easier process and querying effort is optimum. 

Easy querying language. 

Easy to increase server capacity as per usage demand.

Easy UI interface.

Data storage is easy and we do not have to navigate different tables for extracting relational data.

Time to extract the data is faster than non-relational databases and hence there are fewer performance issues.

Earlier services were designed to be integrated with the non-relational databases and when a different type of database is introduced it is obvious that there will be issues in integrating with the existing infrastructure. Same was encountered when trying to integrate Couchbase and exhaustive testing of the setup was done to check for data integrity.

An area of improvement for Couchbase would be to integrate the 3 parts of the Couchbase server (Server, Sync Gateway and Couchbase Lite) into a single unit so the integration with the customer infrastructure becomes easier.

I have been using it for one year. 

For Couchbase server, nodes have to be created or reduced based on requirements, which is a technically complex task.

For Couchbase Capella, there are different combinations CPU and Memory available which can be configured as per requirements and hence it is more flexible. 

Couchbase could also improve with their technical support and provide project specific solutions rather than generic.

Positive

Couchbase is a good NoSQL server and I would recommend it to users, simply because if the simple way of storing the data (in the form of JSON) as well the easy process to retrieve it.

Customer support is good and they will help you in suggesting mitigation measures for most of the issues being faced by the project.

There is no major knowledge gap while transitioning to a non-relational database, knowledge of SQL querying and JSOn models are sufficient. 

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We're using Couchbase for general purposes and for caching.

The principal advantage of Couchbase for us is that we can have multiple database paradigms in the same product, without deploying multiple databases.

We also like that it has lower latency, when compared to its competitor: Cassandra.

We would like to have a better management of Kubernetes with the free, open source version of Couchbase. We don't have any major complaints other than that.

We've been dealing with Couchbase just very recently, approximately two months now.

Couchbase seems to be a stable product.

Couchbase does have an open source version, but it has some problems for deploying in Kubernetes, so we are thinking of going with the commercial version. We estimate that it's not very expensive, however, the pricing that you can get from the account managers, e.g. the public pricing, is a bit expensive.

We were able to evaluate Cassandra. When comparing the two: Couchbase is more general purpose, and it has a smaller latency, while Cassandra is easier to manage with the open source version in cluster environments.

We have only tested deployment for Couchbase. It's just in POC, so it's still too early to tell if the deployment is easy or complex, until we have deployed it in a production environment. It's currently not deployed fully.

We hope that Couchbase is scalable, as there are some studies that we have seen that mention its scalability, but as it's only in POC now, it's still difficult to know for sure.

We have not interacted with technical support yet, so I'm not able to give an evaluation for Couchbase support.

For now, I cannot say if I would recommend this product to others. It's still too early, e.g. it's better if we use it for more months, so we can have more information about it.

I'm rating Couchbase nine out of ten. I didn't give it a perfect score because the implementation schemas need to be improved, and we don't have much data currently.

We are solution providers and we are vendors. We provide products to our clients.

I am working on Couchbase and Elasticsearch together. We use Couchbase as a family data engine for immigration assistance. We use Elasticsearch to replicate the data in realtime from Couchbase, and then we use the search functionality via Elasticsearch.

We are building a property listing system and when it was created we stored all of the data in Couchbase in realtime. We scrape from different sources and select the data from the user agents, and the property agent as well, and then store it. There is a retrieval method built into Couchbase.

I have found the views to be very valuable.

When using Couchbase, I did not face any issues and I think it's quite straightforward. The documentation is clear for the tools, the query, and the indexing. These are easily understood.

I have not faced any difficulty when using Couchbase. It may be because I am a senior developer, so it might be a problem for a junior developer, but I cannot say anything about them.

The interface is good, the dashboard is good, and the analytics is very good. These features have helped us a lot.

Most of the time, the only issued that I have faced was when we upgraded the Couchbase version. It is very difficult to load the backup of the older version to the newer version.

The only problem with it, I mentioned, the loading data from a different version. For that, we use replication to solve the issue. This is the only bad issue we faced, otherwise it is perfect.

I have been using Couchbase for three years.

Currently, I am using version 6.0.

It's stable. I have not experienced any issues.

It's a scalable solution.

In our organization, we have two to three people using Couchbase, and another two to three developers are using Elastic Search.

Communication with the technical support team is rare because most of the time, our clients have not purchased the enterprise version. We solve the issues on our end to keep the project cost low. The project was not too extensive, so we never needed to contact support.

Previously, we were using MongoDB.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have deployed this solution onto our own cloud. We installed the Agentpoint and deployed Couchbase onto the enterprise cloud here.

The deployment took a couple of months, and to draw the schema and design the other requirements took three to four months.

I will be using the enhanced version when we set it up for the customer.

We have a team in our organization to maintain this solution.

We evaluated other options as well, but we choose Couchbase for the immediate consistency with Elastic, and the real-time native replication plugin, which is fantastic!

I plan to be using the enhanced version.

I would definitely recommend this solution to anyone who is interested in using it.

The enterprise version is a more stable version. The indexing is very powerful and the N1QL is especially useful when you come from an SQL background. It will be very powerful.

This is why I would recommend Couchbase. To this point, I have never needed anything extra added to it.

I am very happy with this solution, and I would rate Couchbase a nine out of ten.

I am using Couchbase for searching web services to find user metadata.

The most valuable feature of Couchbase is document indexing. It is better than MongoDB. Additionally, the solution is easy to use.

Couchbase could improve the design of the UI because it should be optimized for viewing statistics or a similar feature.

I have been using Couchbase for approximately two years.

The stability of the solution depends on what environment it is deployed in.

I rate the stability of Couchbase an eight out of ten.

The solution scales well for my usage.

We have five people using this solution in my company.

I rate the scalability of Couchbase an eight out of ten.

I have not used the support from Couchbase. If I encounter issues I used the internet for the use cases that I struggle with to find solutions.

I have used MongoDB previously. Couchbase has an administration panel that is more advanced than MongoDB and allows for more cultivation.

In a runtime environment such as Couchbase, the indexing system can struggle when dealing with large numbers of documents, such as two or three million. This can lead to a delay in the intake of documents. However, I have not used MongoDB in a scenario where such a large number of documents is necessary.

I used Docker to help me set up Couchbase and it was easy. The full process takes 10 to 15 minutes to implement.

I rate the initial setup of Couchbase a ten out of ten.

When considering a NoSQL database, I would recommend MongoDB as the first choice. However, if additional tools or functionalities are needed, then Couchbase may be a better option.

I rate Couchbase a seven out of ten.

In our current project, we use this solution in the healthcare field for the telemedical industry and in other projects in the automation industry.

The valuable features of Couchbase are the many documents and index types, and they made a lot of features available enabling us to use it as a complete solution for our needs.

There are some limitations to the database. The SQL database cannot handle real-time processing for critical IoT scenarios. What we have to do is store our data into the database then code it out, this wastes a lot of time.

We have recently started using the solution.

The solution has been reliable and stable.

We have not attempted to scale the solution at this time because we are a large company that needs more security. We are in the early stages of integrating DTS technology, our chosen security solution, once implemented we will begin scaling Couchbase.

The technical support has been responsive and they provide good support.

The installation could be difficult for some engineers that are brand new to the implementation because the reference documents are much harder to find than other solutions, such as MongoDB.

For the cloud-based solution, there are a number of options available when it comes to the frequency of license payments. You can purchase a license monthly, quarterly, and annually. Since our project includes IoT from another solution this pricing model could be complicated for us.

The price of this solution is better than some of the other competitors.

I have evaluated MongoDB and it is lacking some features that Couchbase has making it a complete solution. With MongoDB, we would need another solution to work alongside it to function the same as Couchbase.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Couchbasean eight out of ten.

There are many shifts and we use Couchbase to log that data whenever they travel from one place to another. We log the data and we merge it in the backend. That's how the application and everything works. If you are a temp person on one shift and you have logged data, we use the nearby API to connect them and to pull and push each other's data. 

We also use Couchbase for Android tablet to the cloud. 

The most valuable features are the ease of application and the merging of data.

I have tried multiple libraries in a demo they provide and it works fine, but when it merges with libraries, it creates a problem.

I have been using Couchbase for six to eight months. 

It is stable.

Couchbase is scalable. There are eight to ten users who use it in my company.

Their support is supportive. 

The initial setup was complex. It was a quick implementation. 

My recommendation of Couchbase would depend on the user's requirements. 

I would rate Couchbase an eight out of ten.