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

141–150 of 425 posts

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

#141

Post by bdcravens »

mi100hael wrote: post #128

> "Most applications today run on a database technology that was introduced in the 1970s," Ittycheria said. "In the '70s, I was using a rotary phone to have a phone conversation. So people are looking for a modern, scalable and flexible platform." It's like a weird version of the Turing test where you have to decide whether someone's speaking seriously or in jest when they talk about NoSQL. https://www.youtube.com/wa…

Meanwhile almost all of those applications are written in languages 20+ years old (Ruby, Java, PHP, Javascript.. Python is almost 30)

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

#142

Post by growse »

hungerstrike wrote: post #37
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.

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.

Any data can be modelled in a relational way, I guess. It doesn't mean it's the best representation.

Try modelling a cyclic graph in a relational way and you'll quickly tie yourself in knots trying to update and query it.

The point is, relational databases a great for storing data that you've decided to model relationally. If you decide not to, then you probably want some other sort of database.

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

#143

Post by tluyben2 »

takeda wrote: post #129
jameskilton wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, right, like RethinkDB? As much as I'd love this to be true, the #1 measure of success is if people even know you exist and #2 is if you solve enough of a customer's problems that it's worth using your product. MongoDB hit these two points hard right out of the gate and are now very successful because of it.

I think it all comes down to what definition is of solving a problem. What Mongo did is implementing these features just well enough so they can put checkpoint in their marketing brochures. When you actually start using it you learn that most of it is either performing slow, does not work correctly or once in a while corrupts your data. Yes they hit these points hard, but only from marketing point of view. They are n…

Because of the term 'NoSQL' people (programmers) assumed they could throw all the information all those neckbeards are whining about overboard. Because NoSQL, people don't seem to treat it like a database and just toss data in it and run queries in the most insane manner possible. Just ignore the fact that your code makes it so that every single query is doing a full tablescan! That doesn't matter on NoSQL right? For a long time, case insensitive queries on a field were done (and recommended) using a regexp...

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

#144

Post by gremlinsinc »

bdcravens wrote: post #141
mi100hael wrote: post #128

> "Most applications today run on a database technology that was introduced in the 1970s," Ittycheria said. "In the '70s, I was using a rotary phone to have a phone conversation. So people are looking for a modern, scalable and flexible platform." It's like a weird version of the Turing test where you have to decide whether someone's speaking seriously or in jest when they talk about NoSQL. https://www.youtube.com/wa…

Meanwhile almost all of those applications are written in languages 20+ years old (Ruby, Java, PHP, Javascript.. Python is almost 30)

while the languages may be old...they're constantly updated... php 7 is lightyears ahead of 5 and 4 was just a joke.. Python 3 same.. just because somethingn is new/old doesn't make it better/worst I mean - many devs swear by Vim which is like 40 years old.. is sublime text better because it's newer?

(I use sublime..but I admire those who've jumped into vim for the productivity boost that brings).

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

#145

Post by andrewmutz »

blauditore wrote: post #135
mi100hael wrote: post #128

> "Most applications today run on a database technology that was introduced in the 1970s," Ittycheria said. "In the '70s, I was using a rotary phone to have a phone conversation. So people are looking for a modern, scalable and flexible platform." It's like a weird version of the Turing test where you have to decide whether someone's speaking seriously or in jest when they talk about NoSQL. https://www.youtube.com/wa…

I know there's quite some aversion to NoSQL around here, and generally I don't care much as I'm seldomly dealing directly with databases. But recently, I've been exposed to a fairly big and complex SQL one with several references between entities and lots, lots of X_has_Y tables. This makes me think that with growing complexity (which seems to be a general trend), NoSQL databases seem more practical at some point, or…

I don't think the HN community is averse to NoSQL solutions, but is averse to MongoDB in particular.

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

#146

Post by VintageCool »

pja wrote: post #116
capkutay wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did MongoDB go to market differently than the other enterprise NoSQL DBs (MarkLogic, DataStax)?

I’m told they absolutely flooded tech meetups in the SV area and with advertorial talks - talks on NoSQL (that just happened to use MongoDB of course), lots of FUD about SQL vs. NoSQL etc etc. I’ve no idea to what extent this was true, or if it was whether it was their main marketing approach, but it might have been quite an effective strategy: talks at meetups are often 'trusted' to a greater extent than other ways…

MongoDB was huge at hackathons, too. People could implement an app in a weekend using MongoDB because it had no integrity checks and none of its drawbacks manifest themselves in the first two days of development.

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

#147

Post by bad_user »

Jach wrote: post #140
mi100hael wrote: post #128

> "Most applications today run on a database technology that was introduced in the 1970s," Ittycheria said. "In the '70s, I was using a rotary phone to have a phone conversation. So people are looking for a modern, scalable and flexible platform." It's like a weird version of the Turing test where you have to decide whether someone's speaking seriously or in jest when they talk about NoSQL. https://www.youtube.com/wa…

I'm continuously amazed when I hear about mongodb in use. Not over say postgres, I get that there are nosql advantages, but over literally any other nosql option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law is the term you're looking for...

In general NoSQL solutions are optimized for certain use-cases at the detriment of others. If you're looking for a general purpose database, then RDBMSs like PostgreSQL are your best bet.

So that said, when comparing NoSQL solutions, ending up with an apples versus oranges comparison is almost inevitable.

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

#148

Post by Jare »

takeda wrote: post #129
jameskilton wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, right, like RethinkDB? As much as I'd love this to be true, the #1 measure of success is if people even know you exist and #2 is if you solve enough of a customer's problems that it's worth using your product. MongoDB hit these two points hard right out of the gate and are now very successful because of it.

I think it all comes down to what definition is of solving a problem. What Mongo did is implementing these features just well enough so they can put checkpoint in their marketing brochures. When you actually start using it you learn that most of it is either performing slow, does not work correctly or once in a while corrupts your data. Yes they hit these points hard, but only from marketing point of view. They are n…

> Yes they hit these points hard, but only from marketing point of view

MongoDB serviced one of my projects for 5 years without a single hitch. It did everything I wanted it to do, it did it well, it did it exactly as advertised (no more, no less), and it did it right when I needed it. It never stopped improving during those years, massively in some aspects. The company behind it only grew stronger during those years, and along with it, so did my confidence that my project wouldn't need to undergo re-engineering further down the line.

Seriously, as a professional software developer, what more do you want.

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

#149

Post by artimaeis »

zzzcpan wrote: post #64
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., "…

You don't seem to know this, but no traditional RDBMSs actually provide CAP consistency, for that they would have to use at least two-phase commit or something, but they don't. So, they all are noCAP databases. Electronic health or financial records are way safer in a proper eventually consistent database, like orders of magnitude safer, but everyone just takes the risk with some insurance at best to cover the losses…

> "no traditional RDBMS actually provide CAP consistency, for that they would have to use at least two-phase commit

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/language-elements...

> If the transaction committed was a Transact-SQL distributed transaction, COMMIT TRANSACTION triggers MS DTC to use a two-phase commit protocol to commit all of the servers involved in the transaction. If a local transaction spans two or more databases on the same instance of the Database Engine, the instance uses an internal two-phase commit to commit all of the databases involved in the transaction.

I'm only versed in SQL-Server but I'm pretty sure other RDBMS vendors provide similar functionality.

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

#150

Post by praneshp »

threeseed wrote: post #118
inferiorhuman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It was the first, well known, company supported JSON document store. It is being used by Facebook, Metlife, Expedia, Sony, eBay, Adobe etc. In what way isn't it ready for production use cases ?

> In what way isn't it ready for production use cases ?

Your parent commenter doesn't like Mongo. So it's not production ready.

Post reply on HN