[janl]

CouchDB is a lot more scalable than SQL databases because it has a distributed scaling model built in (just add nodes), no need to mess with read-replicate and finicky hot-failover, it all just works out of the box (Dynamo style).

[karmelapple]

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.

[janl]

sure, changing defaults for different use-cases is totally normal for any database. Best thing: CouchDB 3.x comes with shard splitting and default shard factor of 2 (previously 8), so you get best of both worlds getting started, and you end up with larger dbs you can split their shards on the fly.