Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 425 posts

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#21

Post by xapata »

josephpmay wrote: post #18
heliodor wrote: post #17

I don't understand why everyone is so happy when IPOs go up and make it sound like a good event. I see it as the founders needlessly missing out on 30% of money (in this case), which ends up going in the pockets of the Wall Street middle men that get first access to the stock offering.

Well, the founders’ shares are usually locked up for months after the IPO, right? More like the VC investors and company missed out on some of their money (which is less than 30% for a 30% rise)

Depends on how the number of shares offered and the dilution was calculated.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#22

Post by shubhamjain »

MongoDB isn't usually seen favorably but everyone must admit that it's an unlikely success story that deserves admiration. Think about it. Bringing a database to the market with a completely different paradigm, growing it to the enterprise-production-ready level, and creating a billion-dollar business around is no small deal. Yes, they did ride the NoSQL zeitgeist but they survived when others had no major success.

Undeniably, they did have their fuck-ups in the start, but I think they have done a good job fixing them.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#23

Post by mason55 »

heliodor wrote: post #17

I don't understand why everyone is so happy when IPOs go up and make it sound like a good event. I see it as the founders needlessly missing out on 30% of money (in this case), which ends up going in the pockets of the Wall Street middle men that get first access to the stock offering.

There are other reasons you might want a pop as opposed to squeezing every possible cent out of the IPO

- For better or worse, a pop is seen as a successful IPO. A lot of the market is about expectations and if you have an "unsuccessful" IPO you are going to get good press.

- Underwriters are selling to the same institutional investors over and over. They're going to promise those investors that there will be a reward for getting in on this IPO. If an underwriter sells a bunch of IPOs that don't go anywhere they are going to have trouble continuing to underwrite

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#24

Post by 52804375092485 »

felipellrocha wrote: post #10

Does anyone use Mongo anymore? Edit: Honest to god question. I was surprised when I saw the headline, because I've never seen anyone use mongo in production, and never ran into any articles talking about using mongo.

I can't think of a compelling reason to use Mongo over Cassandra except "we already use it and don't want to change".

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#25

Post by da_chicken »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #2

Is it me..or does Mongo not seem as relevent and 'hip' as it once was... I mean I feel postgres is much more solid, and you can combine some of the aspects of document store via the json data types they added... of course I'm not really a DBA and don't have a lot of Mongo experience ... but personally I feel rdbms make more sense for growth/scaling..

RDBMS makes sense for most applications. Most applications store data that can be fit to the relational model. Most applications aren't big data or data mining OLAP.

Most RDBMSs can do key-value stores very well now. Most applications also care more about consistency over availability, which is what RDBMSs do (CAP theorem). Many NoSQL data stores choose availability and partitioning and sacrifice consistency (i.e., "eventual consistency"). There's a lot of applications that you can't sacrifice consistency for. Electronic health records, financial records, student records, employee records, etc. You care that the data are accurate and up to date, and you want the system to error if it can't provide that. Wrong answers and "close enough" answers aren't good enough.

Now, if you're running Reddit or Wikipedia or Facebook or HN... do you really care if a user doesn't get the absolute latest version of a document or comment? No, not really. If the content is hours old it's a problem, but it's not a big deal if it's a few minutes out of date. You care more that your users get a version of the document more than you care that they get the latest version of the document.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#26

Post by dsp1234 »

bpicolo wrote: post #6
gremlinsinc wrote: post #2

Is it me..or does Mongo not seem as relevent and 'hip' as it once was... I mean I feel postgres is much more solid, and you can combine some of the aspects of document store via the json data types they added... of course I'm not really a DBA and don't have a lot of Mongo experience ... but personally I feel rdbms make more sense for growth/scaling..

To be fair, Mongo is better than it's ever been. They even got through Jepsen just fine after wiredtiger. That said, it's pretty hard to make sense of when you would want non-relational dbms these days, especially in an era where you can get 100core systems in AWS/GCP. Write-scaling is still a pretty obvious reason, though things like Citus might help here.

They even got through Jepsen just fine after wiredtiger.

With non-default settings[0].

The Jepsen tests passed with the "linearizable" read concern. The default read concern is "local", which "Provides no guarantee that the data has been written to a majority of the replica set members (i.e. may be rolled back)."[1] This is like having "READ UNCOMMITTED" be the default read level in a traditional database system.

The Jepsen tests passed with the "majority" write concern. The default write concern is "1", which means only the "primary" in a replica set needs to acknowledge the write[2]. This does not guarantee safety in the face of network partitions.

It's still not safe out of the box.

[0] - https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-3-4-0-rc3

"With the v1 protocol, majority writes, and linearizable reads, MongoDB 3.4.1 (and the current development release, 3.5.1) pass all MongoDB Jepsen tests:"

[1] - https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/read-concern/

[2] - https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/write-concern/

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#27

Post by enjo »

shubhamjain wrote: post #22

MongoDB isn't usually seen favorably but everyone must admit that it's an unlikely success story that deserves admiration. Think about it. Bringing a database to the market with a completely different paradigm, growing it to the enterprise-production-ready level, and creating a billion-dollar business around is no small deal. Yes, they did ride the NoSQL zeitgeist but they survived when others had no major success. U…

It really is an interesting story. They aren't best in class in any of the metrics we think of as mattering. It's not the highest scale system out there. It's not the most durable. Or the most available. Hell it's not even particularly reliable (at least throughout its history).

It is however..simple. Very simple. It's easy to reason about. It's easy to setup. For 90% of use cases it's very easy to administer.

It turns out the market for that type of data store. Something you can apt-get install and just start dropping data into is pretty massive. I've used MongoDB on a few occasions. Usually thinking I'm just using it to bootstrap a project, but three years later it's still running because it's just good enough to keep me from moving on to something else.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#28

Post by growse »

bpicolo wrote: post #6
gremlinsinc wrote: post #2

Is it me..or does Mongo not seem as relevent and 'hip' as it once was... I mean I feel postgres is much more solid, and you can combine some of the aspects of document store via the json data types they added... of course I'm not really a DBA and don't have a lot of Mongo experience ... but personally I feel rdbms make more sense for growth/scaling..

To be fair, Mongo is better than it's ever been. They even got through Jepsen just fine after wiredtiger. That said, it's pretty hard to make sense of when you would want non-relational dbms these days, especially in an era where you can get 100core systems in AWS/GCP. Write-scaling is still a pretty obvious reason, though things like Citus might help here.

> That said, it's pretty hard to make sense of when you would want non-relational dbms these days. Write-scaling is still a pretty obvious reason, though things like Citus might help here.

Personally, I find a non-relational database useful when my data model is non-relational.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#29

Post by stuffedBelly »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #2

Is it me..or does Mongo not seem as relevent and 'hip' as it once was... I mean I feel postgres is much more solid, and you can combine some of the aspects of document store via the json data types they added... of course I'm not really a DBA and don't have a lot of Mongo experience ... but personally I feel rdbms make more sense for growth/scaling..

It's not hip anymore, but it's still relevant. A company might need to be hip to hype up their technology at the initial stage to gain audiences but eventually they need to settle on a mature business model that might not seem exciting but would let the company survive.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#30

Post by emilsedgh »

felipellrocha wrote: post #10

Does anyone use Mongo anymore? Edit: Honest to god question. I was surprised when I saw the headline, because I've never seen anyone use mongo in production, and never ran into any articles talking about using mongo.

What I'm mostly interested to see is the rate of new projects using mongo.

Do they have growth at a rate that justifies their valuation?

If that's the case, is HN living in its own bubble? Because if you read HN you'd think that nobody will use mongodb for a new project.

Post reply on HN