Live data from Hacker News

Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

aws.amazon.com

31–40 of 323 posts

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#31

Sounds like this runs on the same storage service as Aurora.

Not sure why I'm getting downvoted. The characteristics sound exactly like Aurora.

- "replicates six copies of your data across three AWS Availability Zones (AZs)" [0]

- "Amazon DocumentDB uses a distributed, fault-tolerant, self-healing storage system that auto-scales up to 64 TB per database cluster." [0]

- "When writing to storage, Amazon DocumentDB only persists a write-ahead logs, and does not need to write full buffer page syncs." [1]

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/faqs/

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#32

Serious question: is there any real reason to use Mongo over Elasticsearch?

ES grew out of Lucene, which provided an inverted index of all the text in a document, with a bunch of NLP related features bolted onto that. While ostensibly designed to be developer friendly, ES had and still has a horribly hacked together API with bugs and mis-documented misfeatures all over the place. In my experience it's anything but developer friendly. But if all you need is a text index on a document store with a static schema, it does its job reasonably well.

Mongo started as a very developer-friendly data store with lots of overstated claims to being a database. While earlier versions of Mongo were wildly dangerous to use as a business critical database, it has since matured and is now quite good at being a developer-friendly document-centric database. In my experience Mongo truly is developer-friendly as long as you don't try to use it as a full-blown transactional database with lots of complex data shapes and indexes.

I would not trust ES with anything but text search on a document store, and I would not trust Mongo with anything resembling multi-document transactions. With that said, they are both good at specific, different things.

MySQL and Postgres have their own baggage that makes them pretty terrible in some aspects. IMHO a JSON-over-HTTP API should really be table stakes for a database to be considered developer-friendly nowadays. (But please don't butcher HTTP like ES did and then claim to have that.)

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DynamoDB has specific requirements on how data is partitioned. You have to do upfront planning on how you access your data based on keys. Mongodb is more flexible in this regard. I’m sure there’s other big differences but this is the biggest to my experience with both.

I was asking about DocumentDB, not MongoDB, but maybe I missed something. From their site: > Amazon DocumentDB implements the Apache 2.0 open source MongoDB 3.6 API by emulating the responses that a MongoDB client expects from a MongoDB server, allowing you to use your existing MongoDB drivers and tools with Amazon DocumentDB So, is this a "managed MongoDB" or is it a NOSQL AmazonDB that just implements the same API…

Sounds like the latter to me, they probably implemented it on top of one of their other DBs.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#35
post #18

If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.

Yeah, that's pricy. They're definitely not going after early-stage startups then.

But if you have a medium-sized data set (eg. 50+ GB), this is definitely competitively priced. More RAM, storage, compute than Mongo Atlas and Compose for less money.

Here's hoping they introduce cheaper options!

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#37
post #35
post #18

If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.

Yeah, that's pricy. They're definitely not going after early-stage startups then. But if you have a medium-sized data set (eg. 50+ GB), this is definitely competitively priced. More RAM, storage, compute than Mongo Atlas and Compose for less money. Here's hoping they introduce cheaper options!

50GB is a really small data set.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#38
post #37
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's pricy. They're definitely not going after early-stage startups then. But if you have a medium-sized data set (eg. 50+ GB), this is definitely competitively priced. More RAM, storage, compute than Mongo Atlas and Compose for less money. Here's hoping they introduce cheaper options!

50GB is a really small data set.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#39
post #18

If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.

Besides that AWS will charge per transaction (at 0.2 per million) outrageous given that you already pay per instance.

Correct pricing strategy needs to be per request or per instance, AWS is charging for both

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#40
post #18

If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.

We were paying $5k a month for Atlas. So while it's not 'cheap' for a hosted solution it's cheaper. And the autoscale and RR is better DR is super configurable. And then there is this line.

'Together with optimizations like advanced query processing, connection pooling, and optimized recovery and rebuild, Amazon DocumentDB achieves twice the throughput of currently available MongoDB managed services.`

Post reply on HN