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

MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

luigimontanez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#41

Post by Zuzz »

tsuraan wrote: post #24
Zuzz wrote: post #21

"Being document-based datastores, Riak and CouchDB are the most direct competitors to MongoDB" But Riak is a Key-Value store, not a document one. If that's the premise I wonder how illuminating the rest can be (I kept reading: it's not)

Riak has secondary indices, and map/reduce for ad-hoc queries. You can store raw binary data in it, and it's happy with that, but if you store JSON then it can query it. From what I can tell, the biggest difference between Riak and Bigcouch from a data model POV is that Bigcouch has materialized views, while Riak's are ad-hoc. I'm not an expert in either though...

there you go, from the horse's mouth and fresh off the press:

"For better or worse, many people consider MongoDB and Riak to be competitors. In reality, there are very few similarities between the products."

http://seancribbs.com/tech/2011/11/07/mongodb-and-riak-in-co...

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#42

Post by rbranson »

rkalla wrote: post #33
socratic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an odd analysis if you mean that MongoDB is hitting the trough of disillusionment. MongoDB, Cassandra, HBase, and Redis all came out at roughly the same time (2008, 2009) according to Wikipedia and their project pages. Is there a reason they would be on totally different hype cycles? As far as I can tell, no one has hated on Redis or HBase (except for the brief period when antirez tried to add VM to R…

Oh I do mean that -- I don't think their time in existence effects the rate at which you move along the hype cycle, I think popularity and deployment does. I would say Mongo is the most popular NoSQL data store at the moment; whether it is mindshare or deployments and that is what caused the move along the cycle so much faster. I don't mean to detract from any of the other NoSQL projects; they don't have the marketin…

Cassandra has CouchDB-esque replication?

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#43

Post by dhimes »

matthewcford wrote: post #36
dhimes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you move from couch? I'm considering couch for a project, and am not especially knowledgeable in the space. Couch has worked fine for a low-load, minimal-functioning prototype store (no replication needs, etc.). Its scary feature to me is dealing with compacting-- how and when to schedule it so a large db won't get bogged-down.

At the time, I really liked the idea of couch doc versions, but considering that go away after compaction I was sad about that it didn't give me versioning for free. I think it just came down to preference, MongoDB has a nice way of doing quieres, without having to use views, also its a bit faster, although I've seen people speed up couch by using protocol buffers etc. Now that I havent been following couch for a whi…

I find that strange, also. It just seems like, either compact continuously (and don't make me worry about enormous dbs because of hidden files, and the trouble that can happen when it gets too large (> 1/2 disk space, so I understand)), or give easy access to the versions. I'd prefer the first, but from a user perspective (although maybe not a db-designer perspective), either-or makes sense.

That's the fallout of eventual concurrency, though.

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#44

Post by dhimes »

misterbwong wrote: post #38
jeffdavis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that MongoDB is on its way to becoming the default datastore for web apps? Or are you saying that it's not, and the comparison never should have been made in the first place?

I'm saying that there isn't a default datastore for web apps in the same way there isn't a default language for programming. Different data stores do different things and web apps are so varied that certain apps will benefit from NoSQL, some from SQL, and yet others from straight text file storage. I find it tiring that everyone thinks their choice of datastore is the bestforeverythingontheweb datastore.

Agreed. I'm using MySQL to store relational user data and CouchDB to store docs- in the same application.

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#46

Post by rkalla »

rbranson wrote: post #42
rkalla wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I do mean that -- I don't think their time in existence effects the rate at which you move along the hype cycle, I think popularity and deployment does. I would say Mongo is the most popular NoSQL data store at the moment; whether it is mindshare or deployments and that is what caused the move along the cycle so much faster. I don't mean to detract from any of the other NoSQL projects; they don't have the marketin…

Cassandra has CouchDB-esque replication?

In the most general sense (master-master) yes, but in a more detailed sense... not really.

Cassandra and Riak have a similar replication model -- the are deployed into a "ring" and the data in the ring distributed across some (or all) of the nodes depending on your ReplicationFactor (how many nodes to copy each piece of data to).

If you query for a piece of data that a node doesn't have, it hashes the query and routes you to the node that does have it.

CouchDB is a bit different, in that by default it treats every node as a master and replicates it in its entirety to any other nodes registered as a replication target.

You can shard with something like BigCouch, but that is 3rd party.

This is different than Mongo which is master-slave-slave-* or Redis which I believe is master-slave as well (I never got a clear answer on how "slave" nodes in Redis resolve or push changes back upstream to the master).

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#47

Post by einhverfr »

misterbwong wrote: post #38
jeffdavis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that MongoDB is on its way to becoming the default datastore for web apps? Or are you saying that it's not, and the comparison never should have been made in the first place?

I'm saying that there isn't a default datastore for web apps in the same way there isn't a default language for programming. Different data stores do different things and web apps are so varied that certain apps will benefit from NoSQL, some from SQL, and yet others from straight text file storage. I find it tiring that everyone thinks their choice of datastore is the bestforeverythingontheweb datastore.

This us just about exactly right. You have to look at your data, what it means, and how you want it to be able to be used, before you look at how to store it. In some cases NoSQL makes sense. In others a real solid RDBMS makes sense.

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#49

Post by willvarfar »

calibraxis wrote: post #37
rdtsc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hoax or a double-hoax? Original post was this by nomoremongo: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3201772 Post actually discussed was: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081 Very clever. The way I understand, apparently nomoremongo wrote it but it was reposted quickly by nmongo ( http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nmongo ) in hopes that they could then become the top post, so later on they can yell in all…

Well, it's outlier info from an unreliable source. And possibly outdated too. So if I were evaluating MongoDB, I'd probably just discard this info. (Or skim it for whatever tiny scraps of technical info came out of the discussions.)

Don't skim the last paragraph, which was very much the point of the whole article, and the take wasn't so technical.

Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0

#50

Post by willvarfar »

kevingadd wrote: post #2

"No open source project has received more criticism in recent years than MongoDB." [citation needed] Suggesting that the 1.0 version number should have been reserved until more recently makes me think that what the author of this post is really saying is something like this: "MongoDB wasn't really production-ready until recently. People who wanted to test something bleeding-edge out in the real world should have stil…

What we need is a poll topic along the lines of "I trust MongoDB with my web-startup data" or such. Measure some criticism.
Post reply on HN