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

261–270 of 425 posts

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

#261

Post by grafporno »

threeseed wrote: post #222
flukus wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need more than just a list of companies using it, you can create a similar list for just about any technology, good or bad. Sony is a worldwide company with 127,000 employees, they alone probably use just about every database system around. So saying sony uses mongo isn't impressive, for all we know it was just a side project from an intern that has 100 documents, there is no context.

If we use your tortured logic that reference sites are meaningless then no technology in the history of the world is ever production ready. Well I have worked for a number of billion dollar companies who have run MongoDB so there is first hand evidence.

Well _maybe_ reference sites _are_ meaningless as measure of production readiness?

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

#262

Post by orf »

porker wrote: post #231
paulmd wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB accrued a lot of bad-will due to some extremely questionable defaults, which remain defaults to this day. There's no question that you can write a fast database when there's no guarantee that data ever hits the disk, but developers tend not to like it when a database accepts their write and then silently loses data. It's also great for toy problems and 15-minute-demos... but then you inevitably run into its l…

> NoSQL really fits best around the margins, like as an auxiliary system for analytics. I'd say it also fits well in two niches: document datastores (so long as there's some JOIN support, via referencing nested documents vs direct nesting) and graph stores. I remember 10+ years ago working on storing nested sets in the RDBMS and it wasn't pretty. And the RDBMS schema for Magento 1, with key-value tables all over the…

> so long as there's some JOIN support, via referencing nested documents vs direct nesting)

Which has its own problems. PG does this just fine, with a full battle-tested relational system to back it (and you) up.

> with key-value tables all over the place which NoSQL would have removed the need for.

Product X having a stupid schema is not a good basis for an argument for or against a particular product.

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

#263

Post by orf »

autokad wrote: post #172
blauditore wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 got downvoted in another thread for saying nosql has a lot of advantages in reducing work like not having to worry about carefully creating indexes when joining billion row tables. someone replied you dont need indexes. i replied I dont know how you plan on running joins on billion row tables in postgress without indexes. got downvoted again. I bet they are still waiting for that join....

If you're dealing with billion row tables and using mongodb you are way out of your league. Good luck.

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

#264

Post by ComputerGuru »

Diederich wrote: post #258
ComputerGuru wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how easy to is to scale if it doesn't do it right . You can win all the internet points when it comes to speed and ease-of-use but it doesn't matter if it comes at the cost of data integrity.

> It doesn't matter how easy to is to scale if it doesn't do it right. I would refer you to an earlier comment: > In general NoSQL solutions are optimized for certain use-cases at the detriment of others Your definition of 'right' is absolutely not the only definition of 'right'. More to the point: there are a lot of problem spaces where the data integrity provided by MongoDB are more than sufficient.

Sorry, I meant "correct" and not "right," as the former is objective and the latter can be (though often isn't) subjective. MongoDB is not correct; in fact, it is provably incorrect. If your needs to don't require correctness, then by all means.

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

#265

Post by orf »

Jare wrote: post #187
takeda wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my experience, your use case was simple enough that any database would do just fine.

Our use case was not simple, but MongoDB made it simple to implement. We used pretty much every feature of MongoDB. Any other database could have been coerced to do what we needed, of course, but with greatly varying degrees of extra complexity or overhead.

Please elaborate on how your use case was not simple, and how your data was not relational in the slightest.

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

#266

Post by KallDrexx »

qaq wrote: post #236
bad_user wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I for one think PostgreSQL is overrated. The number one reason for why people want NoSQL is horizontal scaling and for that PostgreSQL is terrible, with all available solutions being hacks that don't work.

what % of people have workload beyond something that PG on i3.16xlarge can handle?

It's also about locality of your data. Having a global infrastructure means 150-200ms minimum latency per query if you have a system in India or Singapore with a database server in a US data center region. That adds up quick.

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

#267

Post by orf »

elvinyung wrote: post #171
gaius wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most RDBMSs can do key-value stores very well now. Yep, all of MongoDB is just one bullet point on Postgres's list of features. Anyone spending on money on it ought to be hauled before the shareholders and given a talking to on fiduciary responsibility...

>just one bullet point Tell me again how Postgres can seamlessly do horizontal scaling and synchronous replication?

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

> MongoDB’s version 0 replication protocol is inherently unsafe.

Tell me again how MongoDB took 8 years to get to the point where its replication is kind of OK.

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

#268

Post by orf »

zzzcpan wrote: post #159
richardwhiuk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper RDMS databases have two phase commit with transactions.....

Which ones? Traditional mainstream RDBMSs, like Mysql and Postgres don't use two-phase commit protocol. Obviously new distributed ones do it properly, but we are not talking about them.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/sql-prepare-trans...

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

#269

Post by orf »

zzzcpan wrote: post #66
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..

Postgres is actually much less solid, it's a database from the different era and doesn't come close to any post-CAP database, even to the infamous Mongodb.

yeah... no. Can you explain why being "from a different era" (and so having a hell of a lot more development time and battle testing) is a bad thing.

While you're at it you could also elaborate on why Postgres is much less "solid" than a database that literally eats writes without any consensus as to if they are valid and/or actually written. After that you could explain why "post-cap" is a thing.

Until you do, your comment is pretty useless and it sounds like you could do with a nice shot of consistent, well designed database right to the heart.

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

#270

Post by revel »

HodGreeley wrote: post #223
programmarchy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couchbase has a pretty nice mobile sync system, with clients for both Android and iOS.

Just want to note Couchbase is not just for mobile. Couchbase Server is an enterprise-class document-oriented (like Mongo) db with a dynamic query language that's a superset of SQL. (FD: I work for Couchbase).

I started a company and chose couchbase. We haven't launched yet, so I've been using the community version and cobbling stuff together.

In this context: please, for the love of God, improve your documentation and dev tools. I love the underlying technology but my experience getting a basic service up and running has been pretty mixed. One of the reasons mongodb has been so successful is that there's 50 bajillion articles showing you how to hack up some crappy code that roughly does what you need it to do. Some of those articles are less bad than others, but in a pinch you can find something to at least get you on the right track. Couchbase doesn't have that deep well of experience to draw on. If you run into a problem, or experience strange behavior, it's up to you to figure out what's going on. That would be ok, but even the official documentation and standard dev tools are not good enough. To get people to adopt couchbase you need to do more to get them started.

Javascript-specific whining: it's particularly frustrating to find an official ODM like ottoman and discover that half the features don't work and that there are tons of bugs that haven't been fixed for about a year. These aren't minor bugs either; some of them stop you using headline features. Forget full text search, N1QL is mostly unusable! Check out ottoman bug #153 for details there.

Post reply on HN