Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Failing with MongoDB

blog.schmichael.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#101

Post by nakkiel »

mnutt wrote: post #92
nakkiel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is completely bogus. Setting up a new user on PostgreSQL takes me roughly 30 seconds. Now if you use the stock system-db user mapping for dev environment, it's something you do only when you install your system. Mine has been installed for 3 years now.

The parent is referring to a new user trying to set up postgres. And in the above Linux networking example, this response is analogous to the person who says "But I wrote my own scripts to fix my ethernet configuration, I don't see what the big deal is!" Edit: That came off a bit harsh. I just don't think the fact that it's not a hassle for us means it's not a hassle for other people. And I don't think that mongo's e…

It didn't came harsh.

I use no script whatsoever and the complication . For a dev environment, I go like this:

  $ sudo su - postgres
  $ createuser -s nakkiel
And again, no further operation is required until you install a new OS on your machine.

I really think we're missing the point anyway. The complicated things, and Mongo's advantage, only really come later when it's time to create a database and tables and columns and indexes..

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#102

Post by einhverfr »

rkalla wrote: post #78
InclinedPlane wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any new entrants in the last few years? Seems like innovation has stalled a bit and stabilization / improvement hasn't caught up yet.

Good question -- as far as new, mature NoSQL solutions on the scene, I just became aware of OrientDB which sort of baffles me with it's functionality. It looks like this amazingly functional blend of MySQL and NoSQL: http://www.orientechnologies.com/orient-db.htm Other than that, I actually think these solutions have been stabilizing exactly because of what you say: innovation is slowing down/stalling. 1-3 years ago…

The problem with Cassandra is you never believe the responses to your queries..... until it is too late.....

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#103

Post by stoneg »

rbranson wrote: post #5
nomongo wrote: post #2

Why is a database that fails so easily and most of the time even loses data so popular? Is it really all just a huge marketing budget?

10gen has focused strongly on ease of adoption, which seems like the highest priority of MongoDB at this point. From what I can tell, the idea is to get everyone using it, and then "scale" it once you've got people willing to pay out $ for fixes, but sometimes bad decisions made early on (like the global locks and in-place updates) are harder to change than originally thought.

yes, we are using mongo from 1.6.3. Reliability, Locking and Data security (not losing data) are never first priorities on their to-do list, they just push new features and busy doing marketing propaganda about how web-scale mongodb is(which is fake). I submitted a jira issue about losing data when sync a slave, it's already 3+ months, all they did is let me try the new releases to see if it fix the problem. I tried the latest 2.0.1 release, and it's still cause data loss. Every time I sync a new slave, I pray to god, hoping not lose data.

How come a DB lose data so frequently and it sill call itself web-scale? It just breaks when you need scale!

For auto-sharding it's also super unreliable, tried once and it failed, and now we are using a lib that do application level sharding. We are also considering move to other databases that at least know not losing data is the first and most important thing of a DB.

Some one summarized the issues of mongodb, http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FD3xe6Jt , we experienced most problems in the article. So just a remind for someone who want to create serious product using mongodb, read the article, it's not FUD, it's just so true that I hope I read it 1 year ago, so we don't have to try moving so much legacy data to a new database solution.

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#104

Post by Detrus »

absconditus wrote: post #68
mnutt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like it's a failure on the devs' part, but that's kind of like blaming regular users for not switching to Linux because they don't like editing network configuration files.* It's masking the problem that there are real developer-friendliness issues with the existing databases. And taunting users will not get them to switch back. * but then Linux distros get network autoconfiguration and suddenly it's obv…

This is exactly why I do not believe that what we do is engineering. Engineers do not refuse to use proven techniques and technologies because they are "too hard" and instead use easier methods that have serious shortcomings.

If you're taking your time to design some important large scale system, using proven technologies is easier overall with higher up front costs.

Prototypes are another story. You'd optimize against mental overhead.

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#106

Post by espeed »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #56
nomongo wrote: post #2

Why is a database that fails so easily and most of the time even loses data so popular? Is it really all just a huge marketing budget?

So what's the preferred alternative noSQL wise? MongoDB is flaky. CouchDB is a maintainability nightmare, so I hear. Riak? Cassandra? Or does everything else have some other equally huge down-side?

Many are moving to Neo4j, including some of the major social networks.

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#107

Post by espeed »

andrewflnr wrote: post #83
rkalla wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question -- as far as new, mature NoSQL solutions on the scene, I just became aware of OrientDB which sort of baffles me with it's functionality. It looks like this amazingly functional blend of MySQL and NoSQL: http://www.orientechnologies.com/orient-db.htm Other than that, I actually think these solutions have been stabilizing exactly because of what you say: innovation is slowing down/stalling. 1-3 years ago…

Orient looks cool. Thanks for the tip. It doesn't look like it will support any other languages though (like Python), which stinks.

Bulbs (http://bulbflow.com) is a Python persistence framework that supports OrientDB, Neo4j, Dex, and any Blueprints-enabled graph DB.

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#108

Post by dextorious »

nomongo wrote: post #2

Why is a database that fails so easily and most of the time even loses data so popular? Is it really all just a huge marketing budget?

Probably because the quality of CS graduates has been so low at recent years. MongoDB = oh, shiny, fast.

Re: Failing with MongoDB

#110

Post by rasur »

gojomo wrote: post #58

Maybe there's a niche for "PostgreNoSQL", a layer atop Postgres that you start using like a NoSQL solution. (Perhaps, it's string keys and JSON blob values.) It's not very efficient, except for simple keyed lookups, but it works enough for a quick start. Then, as you use it, the system optimizes itself (or makes suggestions) based on actual access patterns. A subset of objects could be a formal, indexed table? Have i…

IIRC, there are people talking directly to InnoDB (MySQL backend) using it as a NoSQL style DB. You don't however get SQL analysis, you're bypassing the SQL side of things.
Post reply on HN