Magma Storage engine Performance

Hi All,

We had one requirement for our customer where they are insisting to use Magma storage engine, as it is more performant with larger dataset. We would appreciate if someone can share the your thoughts on Magma storage if it is implemented in your environment. You can share if you observe in performance issue after the implementation.


Hey @Debasis_Mallick - great topic for conversation!

I imagine you may have already seen these, but just sharing them here again:

You may also want to come into Discord and ask the same question (or post a link to this forum post) to have a more real-time conversation

1 Like

Thanks @perry . Let me go though and will post in case of any queries.

Hi @perry ,

I had gone through the case study and YouTube videos, what I understood that compare to Couchstore Magma will be more performant w.r.t Compression Ratio, Disk Read access, Reduction of TCO etc. and overall we did not see any issues if we run CB with Magma storage. Then why Couchbase not making the Magma as a default storage engine instead of Couchstore. Is Couchbase still waiting for customers to share more views on Magam storage and then they will make it default storage engine in future releases.

Please share your thoughts on this.


HI @Debasis_Mallick it’s certainly a reasonable question and I believe that’s the direction we’re heading in. It’s just a matter of time and seeing enough real world use cases for us to give everyone the necessary confidence and experience to make it the default. We do expect there may always be cases for Couchstore, especially for very small data sets where the baseline overheads for Magma in terms of CPU and RAM aren’t appropriate.

cc/ @chinhong