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

51–60 of 425 posts

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

#51

Post by kornish »

eternalban wrote: post #41
da_chicken wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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., "…

> RDBMS makes sense for most applications. But "applications" are built by development teams. So: Does an "RDBMS makes sense for most applications"?

Could you point to a definition of "application" that has the word "team" in it?

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

#52

Post by jsjohnst »

bpicolo wrote: post #31
growse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 kno…

> But with how fast CPUs are these days it's usually not important for a long time.

That’s a very naive statement to make.

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

#53

Post by enjo »

52804375092485 wrote: post #24
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".

It's a fair bit easier to setup than Cassandra and a document store is simply easier for most people to reason about than column-families.

For something like your typical rails app, Mongo has some real nice properties. It makes it sticky. You start out with Mongo because you can just drop data in and off you go. You keep using it because Mongo, despite all of its drawbacks, is really plenty good enough for more than 80% of the stuff on the web.

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

#54

Post by wcarron »

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.

At my (admittedly tiny) place of work, we use it in production for literally everything alongside redis. It gets the job done. Not my favorite. I'd rather be using PostgreSQL since our data is 100% relational. But though some wicked twist of fate, I'm the only one who can use SQL dbs, and the Sr. devs like mongodb.

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

#55

Post by erik_seaberg »

brianwawok wrote: post #40
zitterbewegung wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe they haven't noticed? I've seen databases fail in ways that take a long time to detect on accident, if you don't have a source of truth to sanity check against.

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

#56

Post by cujic9 »

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.

Pricing is hard, but yes, I think they did price this one a little too low.

That said, the goal is for shares to have a nice upward pop when they hit the open market.

This helps encourage a broader based of shareholders, protecting against the case where a big shareholder decides to dump all of their shares.

This also helps in the case where the company comes out with bad news in the near future. Shareholders who make money are less likely to sue.

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

#57

Post by yaseer »

user5994461 wrote: post #50
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…

Depends what you mean by production ready. Sure thing, $192M is not a billion dollar business.

$192M is the value of the shares sold in the IPO.

The MDB's market cap, i.e. it's valuation, is around $1.17 billion as of the time this article was written:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/mongodb-prices-its-ipo-worth...

EDIT: Added 'billion'

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

#58

Post by inferiorhuman »

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…

> Bringing a database to the market with a completely different paradigm, growing it to the enterprise-production-ready level

Neither of those are true, however.

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

#59

Post by adamnemecek »

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's easy to reason about.

...until it's not. Then it's really not.

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

#60

Post by bpicolo »

jsjohnst wrote: post #52
bpicolo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kno…

> But with how fast CPUs are these days it's usually not important for a long time. That’s a very naive statement to make.

Is it? Because there are a ton of companies out there running postgres, mysql and scaling workloads just fine.
Post reply on HN