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

31–40 of 425 posts

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

#31

Post by bpicolo »

growse wrote: post #28
bpicolo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. The most direct argument against that is that Postgresql jsonb is just non-relational data support in a first class relational DB, which is pretty great, so to an extend you get the best of both worlds, though I'm sure you can find a case where it's not quite optimal vs some nosql db.

This talk is a pretty nifty perf overview:

https://www.percona.com/live/e17/sessions/high-performance-j...

That said, if you know beforehand that horizontal scaling will be a crucial factor, probably postgres isn't the first choice. But with how fast CPUs are these days it's usually not important for a long time.

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

#34

Post by collyw »

growse wrote: post #28
bpicolo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That makes complete sense, but it seems to be very rare that data is non relational in my experience.

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

#35

Post by zitterbewegung »

enjo wrote: post #27
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 tur…

Developer ergonomics are way more important than many features to get wide adoption. You can fix the other things with time. Worse is better.

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

#37

Post by hungerstrike »

growse wrote: post #28
bpicolo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is an example of non-relational data?

A tree is relational. Each child has a relation to its parent.

I can't imagine data that has no relation (no connection) to anything else. Maybe what you meant was heterogeneous (e.g. data elements that do not all have the same attributes) - but even then I can't readily come up with an example.

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

#39

Post by stanfordkid »

enjo wrote: post #27
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 tur…

It really was the first NoSQL database that many programmers used -- and it came out right around the same time that JSON was really taking off. The timing was perfect, the product was simple. Fact is most people don't really need insane scale and there are thousands of use cases where you just need to read and write JSON and fetch things by a few different fields. I think they nailed it. Every other NoSQL DB out there at the time was insanely hard to "just play with" (e.g HBase, Cassandra etc.)

I think you hit the nail on the head -- for many programmers who were "coming of age" at that time Mongo was the easiest to experiment with and to get working.

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

#40

Post by brianwawok »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #35
enjo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tur…

Developer ergonomics are way more important than many features to get wide adoption. You can fix the other things with time. Worse is better.

Except when you poison mindshare.

For example, I used Mongo back in the early days. Was terrible. I will now never use it again. I don't care if it shoots lasers. It is dead to me.

Obviously the happy developer count is way more than the hate it for life count, so I am the odd man out here. Perhaps many users never actually had many GB of data or had to deal with the data loss side of things?

Post reply on HN