101–110 of 291 posts
At a previous job I shipped Mongo as the store (under AGPL) because at the time the replication story for PGSQL was too complex compared to mongo. But I reached a point where I was going to replace Mongo with elasticsearch and get rid of Solr at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not just use a RDMS from day one?
Because we had data that fit better in a non relational store. We stored data that created from user generated forms and we loaded data back into those forms. Why use a relational store? If you’re working with a system that will only be read and written by an object based language? Why keep converting back and forth between a relational model and an object oriented model? In C# var seniorMales = from c in context.Cus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please explain why it is impossible to comply with?
When you are offering MongoDB as a service, article 13 requires you to release the source code of everything you're using to host your MongoDB instance under the terms of SSPL. In practice, it's impossible because you aren't the copyright holder of your kernel, firmware, webserver etc. so you can't change their license to SSPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you looked at postgresql document store? Amazon put a mongodb API on that and made a service after all
1) No that's not what AWS did at all. They implemented the MongoDB API on top of their own storage layer. It doesn't use PostgreSQL. 2) Of course. But MongoDB is orders of magnitude faster in some cases, has better horizontal scalability capabilities, better drivers and some nicer semantics e.g. around streaming.
A lot of people advocate PostgreSQL as a replacement. Why not elasticsearch? It’s also a document store with a good history. At a previous job I shipped Mongo as the store (under AGPL) because at the time the replication story for PGSQL was too complex compared to mongo. But I reached a point where I was going to replace Mongo with elasticsearch and get rid of Solr at the same time.
However, the number of documents is large, and for some documents previous versions will have to be stored, as well.
With Mongo out, do you have any suggestions? Is PostgreSQL the best option here? I'm fairly new to this space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we had data that fit better in a non relational store. We stored data that created from user generated forms and we loaded data back into those forms. Why use a relational store? If you’re working with a system that will only be read and written by an object based language? Why keep converting back and forth between a relational model and an object oriented model? In C# var seniorMales = from c in context.Cus…
That doesn't make sense - how are you eventually moving to a RDBMS if your data is not suited to it?
Anything that you can store in object database you can normalize and store in an RDMS. ORMs have been translating relational models back and forth to object models for decades.
In the case of Mongo, you just create one object containing other objects, lists, arrays etc and the driver serializes it to a JSON like structure and stores it as is in the collection.
In the case of an RDMS, you create your C# classes to model your tables and relationships.
The driver translates the LINQ to the appropriate query language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) No that's not what AWS did at all. They implemented the MongoDB API on top of their own storage layer. It doesn't use PostgreSQL. 2) Of course. But MongoDB is orders of magnitude faster in some cases, has better horizontal scalability capabilities, better drivers and some nicer semantics e.g. around streaming.
It’s webscale!
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&date...
No hate, just always amused me that someone on HN had MongoDB as their hobby horse.
A lot of people advocate PostgreSQL as a replacement. Why not elasticsearch? It’s also a document store with a good history. At a previous job I shipped Mongo as the store (under AGPL) because at the time the replication story for PGSQL was too complex compared to mongo. But I reached a point where I was going to replace Mongo with elasticsearch and get rid of Solr at the same time.
I may have a project coming up that will include a document store component. It's in-house, with the maximum number of simultaneous users under 15, so scalability that way isn't a concern. However, the number of documents is large, and for some documents previous versions will have to be stored, as well. With Mongo out, do you have any suggestions? Is PostgreSQL the best option here? I'm fairly new to this space.
A lot of people advocate PostgreSQL as a replacement. Why not elasticsearch? It’s also a document store with a good history. At a previous job I shipped Mongo as the store (under AGPL) because at the time the replication story for PGSQL was too complex compared to mongo. But I reached a point where I was going to replace Mongo with elasticsearch and get rid of Solr at the same time.
I may have a project coming up that will include a document store component. It's in-house, with the maximum number of simultaneous users under 15, so scalability that way isn't a concern. However, the number of documents is large, and for some documents previous versions will have to be stored, as well. With Mongo out, do you have any suggestions? Is PostgreSQL the best option here? I'm fairly new to this space.
What I don't understand is the many people who are talking about AWS' replacement being a solution for people migrating from MongoDB.
From the comments, it seems:
- it's expensive to use. Someone spent $15 for 2KB data over 3 days [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20862196] - it's only compatible with MongoDB 3.4, which seems not to be enough for some people.
What are the reasons to move to AWS' very offering that MongoDB (and others) are trying to prevent from making money off their investment? Is it a feeling of 'betrayal' that the license has now changed?
MongoDB has had an attitude that the source for the community product is available, but that they mostly develop their product using their core team. [https://www.techrepublic.com/article/mongodb-ceo-tells-hard-...]
So, did the change to their Server License thing result in people having to pay for the Community Edition?
Is the move from MongoDB because it's incompatible with one's data needs (in which case, why didn't one do enough research)?
Why move to AWS' offering instead of 'supporting' these companies? If AWS and Azure thought to create MongoDB Compatible abstraction layers, then surely they saw something useful/good in parts of the database? Then why punish the companies that innovated in creating these technologies?
Lastly, the idea that companies will be fully-OSS and make money from unicorn dust fails once those holding these opinions are on the driver's seat. How many foundations do you donate to, that support the OSS that you use?
The current trend of continuing to want things for free from companies, but being willing to spend an extra fee for a 'managed service' from a cloud provider will hurt a lot of otherwise innovative companies in the coming decade.