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

341–350 of 425 posts

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

#341

Post by growse »

gaius wrote: post #323
growse wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. Sure. But that database is not MongoDB.

Oh, I totally agree!

The "you only need relational databases" mantra bugs me though, because it's so obviously not true.

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

#342

Post by growse »

hungerstrike wrote: post #137
balfirevic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Word "relational" in relational databases does not stand for relationships between the tables [0]. That being said, relational model is a great fit for plenty (most?) of the data. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(database)

Thanks for the technical correction. That also being said, I think that definition is terrible and that anybody trying to understand what a relational database is would be better off not reading that article. Yes, I agree that most types of data can be stored in tabular form (or an "n-ary relation" per Wikipedia). I'm just wondering what concrete types of data one would rather store in a document. I don't think there…

> I don't think there is a good example. The decision to store some data outside of an RDBMS must have more to do with the processing model or something else.

What else other than the processing model and business requirements would determine how you model and store your data?

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

#343

Post by rdslw »

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…

I don't buy "creating a billion-dollar business".

Ive read a Bloomberg story on the IPO and saw there two hilarious sequences "MongoDB has 4,300 paying customers. MongoDB employs 820 people in 29 offices" - that does not compute (for me) so I started analyzing their financial report (btw funny is nobody in whole HN discussion quoted numbers from the report so far, but a lot of 'im buying their stock' talks here).

In the report, scroll to the bottom where they put some cream: they show for last year 91m rev from subscriptions plus 10m from services. While at the same time they show operating LOSS of 85 millions (due to cost, people, marketing, sales, services etc). Khem khem, I know they are growing (holy world) but no, that does not compute.

Of course it is just mine opinion, and looking on the IPO results, rather unpopular one :) but I will stand by it. Especially in next 3 years. Caveat emptor.

I will short them soon.

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

#344

Post by qaq »

bad_user wrote: post #193
qaq wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is PG will outperform most NoSQL solutions as NoSQL store for vast majority of use cases.

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.

People tend to copycat what Google and the like are doing without giving much thought to the fact that in many cases the solutions they adapt are simply due to the fact that they don't have an alternative and not because it's "better".

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

#345

Post by developer2 »

blitmap wrote: post #298
rburhum wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people forget that with startups, what you are trying to create is a business... the technology behind is only one element to it. It is extremely difficult to do good marketing and sales and they did it. Solve a customer problem while building a healthy business... a success story in my book.

I'm not sure HN celebrates products for simply being successfully marketed. That said, I do think they made a way of handling a data model pleasurable. Different paradigm++

>> not sure HN celebrates products for simply being successfully marketed

Except that Mongo didn't find success through "simply being successfully marketed". So many people in this thread cannot seem to understand how to look at the business as a whole. Software devs are blasting the software for not being a mind-blowing piece of technology, while not understanding that it has its niche and - apparently - a good business strategy.

You cannot (typically) succeed by only having an amazing product. You also (typically) cannot succeed by dumping millions into sales and marketing for a truly garbage product. The product itself and the business behind it are both necessary elements for success.

There are a lot of developers in this thread trying very hard to appear smart by jumping on the "Mongo is a joke" bandwagon.

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

#346

Post by tormeh »

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?

You mean asynchronous?

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

#347

Post by Daycrawler »

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., "…

It's not about the applications. It's about the components of the application. Reddit, Wikipedia, Facebook, HN, all use a mixture of RDBMS and NoSQL.

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

#348

Post by orf »

skrebbel wrote: post #325
orf wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This subthread is about the future, not the past. 8 years ago, PG didn't have json support so your point is moot. I'm very curious about what people think about the future of Mongo, independently and particularly in comparison to Postgres. However every time that comes up, people keep bringing up that Mongo was a buggy piece of crap in some irrelevant past. So what?

> This subthread is about the future, not the past. 8 years ago, PG didn't have json support so your point is moot.

8 years ago PG did have replication though, so not sure why it not having feature X 8 years ago makes my point moot.

People keep bringing up that it was a buggy piece of crap because its the icing on the cake and pretty much something you never want your database to be, past or present. Not that software configured by default to eat your data and not persist it can be called a database mind you.

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

#349

Post by GenericsMotors »

takeda wrote: post #113
munk-a wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even minor things like picking a product name had impact. They also implemented most desirable features (the gotcha was that they were half assed, but if your evaluation was also half assed as is usually done you won't notice it) I actually chose it back in 2010 project and on paper MongoDB looked better than other databases. MongoDB name as they mentioned originates from Humongous Database giving false impression th…

> Even minor things like picking a product name had impact.

They get zero points for this.

It pretty much reads as "Retard"DB in Portuguese, Spanish, and IIRC German.

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

#350

Post by cujic9 »

Pottsy wrote: post #316
cujic9 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, why exactly do you think 7.5x next year sales is too low?

Because the market would have supported a higher price.
Post reply on HN