I think the share price will be eventually consistent.
Is this a pun? For puns I go to Reddit, for substance to HN.
My sincerest apologies. I hope I didn’t ruin your entire week.
MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
411–420 of 425 posts
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#412Earlier 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…
Mongo as a business has largely catapulted itself to where it is by making money off of information assymetry more than actual technical superiority. They may have since corrected a lot of the fundamental technical isssues with their product, but that doesn’t change the fact that (contrary to SV dogma) their success doesn’t rest on the creation of wealth, only its extraction from magpie-type customers. Downvoters lik…
"their success doesn’t rest on the creation of wealth, only its extraction from magpie-type customers"
To make such an assertion, you're going to have to provide evidence that the people using Mongo and it's services, are, in fact too stupid to know what's good for them, and that they are absolutely better off using something else.
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you looked at their financials? They are in the same bandwagon as their technology.
Mongo's business model is "exploiting the technically naive". They are the CueCat of databases.
How is it exploitative to give something away for free?
Imagine if everyone using MongoDB had to pay for it, you know, like most things in the world?
I suggest they are giving away their cake and picking up a few crumbs after the fact.
Builders don't typically give away homes to sell a few cabinets.
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#414Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
It starts really early on. When I first used MongoDB I thought to myself "what a fresh breath, I can finally ignore normalization!" The documents I inserted would contain all the information I needed. One retrieval and I got what I needed. Wow!! But then I started doing sorting, searching and I had to do most of the work on the client side (my backend). At that point, I found myself in trouble because in my other tab…
It amazes me how quickly our industry has forgotten the need for DBAs. With these MongoDBs, MPP cloud dbs and Hadoops, everyone seems to have assumed that engineers can now do all db work. This is reflected in the titles too: Data "Engineer". But from my perspective, this is delusional. There is a lot that goes into DBA's experience that is not solved by the performance improvements in databases over the past decade.…
> everyone seems to have assumed that engineers can now do all db work
Yes, everyone wants "full stack" and so you have a bunch of people haphazardly adorning themselves with the "full stack" label.
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#416Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether you need indexes really depends on what you’re trying to do. Full table scans are more efficient if you are doing analytics on most of those rows in a time series. If you need 1 row in a billion, yes, you need an index.
if your doing a join on two size N tables, your O(n) cost for each record is N, thus you are doing N^2 lookups. basically reading the entire DB into memory each record.
No. Worst case a nested join of two tables M and N would be O(MN). But most real databases would have a merge or hash join which could bring this down to O(M+N) if the tables are already stored in a sorted indexed order. It is also rare the cardinality of these databases will be similar in an analytical query - usually you have one time series “fact table” and a bunch of dimensions to enrich that data.
If I’m doing analytics on a time series this gets even better with partition pruning and hash joins or bitmap indexes. And if I have a columnar database, that blows up this whole complexity argument.
My point is that, layout and indexes should never be assumed to be one size fits all. Keep in mind if I’m doing analytics I want to bring my time series data into memory at least as a stream, as I need to calculate / filter / transform the records. Not everything is about rendering a page on a website.
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#418I 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.
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. That's the system as it's currently implemented, yes. Underwriters have some folks on tap that they'll let in on the IPO. IOW, folks that'll dump money into the IPO. But those folks aren't suckers, they'd like to see a return on t…
Those investors are given allocations based on how much the brokers like them, how much brokerage they pay, etc. The book build isn't done on the highest price, that's the messed up part.
If it was done on the highest price - then those investors who are buying after IPO would have put in bids in the IPO and there wouldn't be a pricing gap.
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but your speculation suggests that the "often" is enough to explain the parent's downvotes. I think there's a better explanation that doesn't impugn certain "types" of people. I'm just speculating too of course.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is a better (and more probable) answer?
Sorry I just saw this - it's what I said in my original comment that you replied to, I think a better and more probable explanation is that people "have a lot of respect for the difficulty of building the business side of an organization and for the folks who can do it well, [but that they] think that it is unwise to build a business based mostly on sales and marketing without focusing enough on the quality of the product itself".
Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO
#420As usual, the confusion and religious comments are numerous. There is no such thing as "nosql". There are different types of databases, with traditional relational being useful for 95% of scenarios (especially on increasingly fast servers with decent replication features) while the rest of the time something more specific is needed. SQL is just an interface, obviously common to relational databases but can be applied…
Marten > RavenDB!
In some cases, but ravendb 4.0 is natively clustered and has more querying capabilities and performance when using all of the document store functionality.