311–320 of 425 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EAVT table with 100 million entities and 10000 attributes = one trillion row table. And you want to build indexes on half the table ? Good luck with that.
> Often with most of the values set to null. Your math is at odds with your own requirements, null values don't need a row.
Sparcity is an issue for the wide table not the EAVT form.
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.
MongoDBs clients are much more simple to use than that of RethinkDB. Imho that was the number one reason it didn’t gain traction.
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., "…
Why? An RDBMS has never been the best option for any application I have created and I have created standard business applications as well as consumer applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am financially secure. At most, I risk about $3500 because I'll sell if they go below $24 each. I did the same thing with Tesla, though they were $24 at the time. I've written about this before, here in HN comments. I often make stock choices based on the commentary at sites like Slashdot and HN. No, I don't listen to people saying to sell or buy, I listen to the hype and commentary about the companies themselves.…
This assumes you catch it before it falls below $24, which you'll have to by hand since you said you don't have an automatic stop loss, just a notification.
That way, I can change my mind if, for some reason, I think it will rally.
They also fail the VC "rule of 40" where SaaS companies should have growth plus margins equal to 40%. (50% growth and negative 10% margins, or 10% growth and 30% margins) They seem to be at 50% growth, but minus 40% margins.
Somehow they pulled it off. Great for them!
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 mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally any other. I'm unaware of any alternative so unreliable. There was a post on LinkedIn last year, "MongoDB: The Frankenstein Monster of NoSQL Databases"[0], by the CTO of SlamData, which I think produces an analytics package for MongoDB or the like. The piece is an interesting dive into why MongoDB is what it is (at least as of March 2016) -- and given his connection to MongoDB and its employees -- being a p…
Another post[0] by the same author complements the one I posted above -- this is more recent and is focused more on MongoDB's moves as a company, relating what he saw at MongoDB World 2017): You might expect a database company to announce improved scalability, reliability, or performance. Or perhaps announce some of the countless features that users have been requesting for years, which are collecting dust in MongoDB…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree - I think there is a perception that if you build an awesome product it sells itself. There is so much work to running a successful business, especially at that scale. Marketing, Sales, Implementation, Support, on top of G&A, and that's not even touching on HR and retaining employees in a competitive market. There is a reason some people are known as the "business" guys, I think expertise in that area is underr…
I didn't downvote you, but if I had, it would be because while you're right that building sales and marketing is difficult and doing so successfully is certainly admirable, another fundamentally important part of creating a successful software business is building a successful product . I suspect your downvoters don't believe that Mongo has actually done that part.
There are plenty of reasons to write good quality code (it's more maintainable, moves faster, more secure, requires less resources, more fun, etc) but "because you won't be successful if you don't" really isn't one of them.
ach, the interminable hatred of mongodb is an anthropological artifact worthy of study. It's the only truly working example of a horizontally scalable arbitrary document storage and retrieval system with indexing on any element. It is a much more general tool then an RDBS, and should never be used when an RDBS would do the job. However, it's really good at collecting searchable, arbitrary schemaless data in real time…
The hate comes exactly from that. The "hipster" just use it for everything. Try reading some "modern" webdev tutorial without seeing it used wrongly.