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

331–340 of 425 posts

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

#331

Post by rogerb »

munk-a wrote: post #65
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…

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

Lol. Yes, you customers of mongodb ! You’re all wrong and duped by pretty pictures! If just you could achieve the enlightenment of munk-a ! Lol. I’ve seen this idiotic response from the very beginning days of mongo (I worked there). Marketing at mongo did little more than maniacally focusing on making sure our customers and users where tied into the community and supremely supported on any issue they might have. But go on - keep predicting imminent failure, your sentiment is shared by a lot of people who have never build a company and frankly never will.

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

#332

Post by nagarjun »

munk-a wrote: post #65
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…

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

What would you consider to be a "top-notch" NoSQL database?

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

#333

Post by elgenie »

mason55 wrote: post #23
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.

There are other reasons you might want a pop as opposed to squeezing every possible cent out of the IPO - For better or worse, a pop is seen as a successful IPO. A lot of the market is about expectations and if you have an "unsuccessful" IPO you are going to get good press. - Underwriters are selling to the same institutional investors over and over. They're going to promise those investors that there will be a rewar…

Both of those are meaningless to a company when compared to having 30% more money to devote to their projects. Because of lockups, the IPO pop is irrelevant to employees and most insiders, whose proceeds are usually determined by the stock's value six months from IPO.

The first point amounts to one good press cycle. You can get that other ways and the lasting value of a single cycle of fluffed up good press based on underwriters and their cronies making money on their shares is nil.

The second is entirely the underwriter's problem. A company only IPOs once; there's no reason for them to take a hit to help the underwriter and friends make money for no reason. The underwriter takes a cut and a fee regardless.

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

#334

Post by porker »

paulmd wrote: post #328
porker wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can you define what "nested sets" means more specifically? Postgres supports hierarchical/nested structures using the "ltree" column type. There is nothing stopping you from defining a primary key of (eg) "set1.set10.set100". There is also support for recursive views/etc to operate on these kinds of sets. Again, if you have some kind of "sparse" column, it can make sense to put that into a JSONB column. This is effec…

Sure: http://mikehillyer.com/articles/managing-hierarchical-data-i...

Joe Celko popularised them. I've been unable to find when they were first introduced; but a search of my source code archive points to having written one ~14 years ago.

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

#335

Post by porker »

orf wrote: post #262
porker wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

What other way could Magento have implemented user-defined columns at the time, using a RDBMS? In 2009 when MongoDB was released, JSON columnstores were something to dream of and the alternative was storing serialised data in a BLOB field. That "stupid schema" did not have an alternative I can think of, except NoSQL.

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

#336

Post by jamaicahest »

>Twenty-one percent of respondents told industry site StackOverflow that MongoDB was the most popular database, second only to versions from the dominant technology, SQL, which traces its roots back to legacy technology companies such as Microsoft, IBM and Oracle.

Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle are legacy technology companies? What kind of hipster journalist wrote this article?

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

#337

Post by GenericsMotors »

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

Ah yes, the "toss your data over the fence and hope for the best" paradigm.

Truly groundbreaking.

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

#338

Post by Arnt »

munk-a wrote: post #65
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…

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

It was picked up due to merit, IMNSHO, just not the for the factors you think highly of.

It didn't do ACID, not even nearly, but it did other praiseworthy things, with "laser focus on four critical things: onboarding, usability, libraries and support" (https://www.nemil.com/mongo/2.html). Please don't be disparaging about any of those four.

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

#339

Post by tribaal »

da_chicken wrote: post #25
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..

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., "…

> Now, if you're running Reddit or Wikipedia or Facebook or HN...

Wikipedia uses MariaDB (so, MySQL). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers#Software

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

#340

Post by timthelion »

munk-a wrote: post #65
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…

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

Has MongoDB improved post funding? I got involved in Docker early and invested about a year of work into a project based on Docker. Docker was slow and had warts and my project ultimately is almost unusable due to Docker's slowness and warts. I knew about the warts near the beginning, but I assumed that when they got $40million, they would fix the warts. They didn't. Indeed, it seems that quality has not changed since they got funded, perhaps it has even decreased! If nothing else, it has certainly gotten harder to install on linux. I think that it is often the case that a user base buys into an idea and funding comes and there is a vision. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as the company actually invests the money into achieving that vision. I mean, lots of people have bought into Tesla's vision, that vision hasn't been achieved yet, it's still mostly just marketing, especially the self driving part, but no one is going to hate them for marketing the vision if they DO succeed, or at least try valiantly.
Post reply on HN