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

“MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#21

Post by this_user »

busterarm wrote: post #10
seiji wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PostgreSQL has native json support now. What else is missing? Just a protocol implementation? I'd love to see MongoDB give up and become a PostgreSQL consultancy. Everybody I talk to in the field has the exact same Mongo story: "We love JSON! We use JSON everywhere! We just wanted a DB with native JSON support. We didn't look at the implementation details. We only looked at their marketing. Now we wake up at 3am to f…

I really would love it if somebody could go back in HN-Time and track the data on Mongo posts & comments. I've always been slightly skeptical about it, but it always seemed to me that there was a long love affair with it overall. Then people started voicing their frustrations and the community was divided and now it looks acrimonious for everyone.

Isn't that true for most of those 'flavour of the month' technologies?

First a shiny new piece of technology shows up that promises to solve all the issues you have with a mature and widely adopted solution. People get exited and at some point the media picks up on it und starts the hype cycle. More and more decision makers hear about the technology (probably aided by marketing) and decide to adopt it. Implementation takes place and the new technology is deployed into the live environment. Some time goes by and the first issues appear, workarounds and tweaks are devised to mitigate those. After even more time the technology's inherent flaws become apparent. At this point either someone else develops a new iteration of that technology with the promise of solving those issues or the technology is abandoned altogether as it is unable to deliver sufficient value and cannot be fixed.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#22

Post by busterarm »

this_user wrote: post #21
busterarm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really would love it if somebody could go back in HN-Time and track the data on Mongo posts & comments. I've always been slightly skeptical about it, but it always seemed to me that there was a long love affair with it overall. Then people started voicing their frustrations and the community was divided and now it looks acrimonious for everyone.

Isn't that true for most of those 'flavour of the month' technologies? First a shiny new piece of technology shows up that promises to solve all the issues you have with a mature and widely adopted solution. People get exited and at some point the media picks up on it und starts the hype cycle. More and more decision makers hear about the technology (probably aided by marketing) and decide to adopt it. Implementation…

Totes. I just wanna see pretty graphics of the trend. These things interest me.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#23

Post by viraptor »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #18
seiji wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PostgreSQL has native json support now. What else is missing? Just a protocol implementation? I'd love to see MongoDB give up and become a PostgreSQL consultancy. Everybody I talk to in the field has the exact same Mongo story: "We love JSON! We use JSON everywhere! We just wanted a DB with native JSON support. We didn't look at the implementation details. We only looked at their marketing. Now we wake up at 3am to f…

It is probably not as simple as "supports json now". Imagine if HN comments were stored as a JSON document: Client A: Read JSON. Client B: Read JSON. Client A: Append new comment to json document. Client B: Append new comment to json document. Client A: Save JSON Client B: Save JSON A's comment will get deleted. My understanding is that Mongo DB does have a way to append a record within a document, but Postgres does…

In that case you can (should) just "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE" in your transaction. This should prevent the issue. Client B will wait with the read until client A commits.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#24

Post by dev360 »

functional_test wrote: post #19

Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly? I want to believe all the Mongo hate, but I can't because I always find out that the actual problem was one or more of: * didn't read the manual * poor schema * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) In this case, they hit several: " Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store;" They should be doing compactions and…

In all fairness, the compaction is a major pain in Mongo. I get a little worked up about this because I cant think of another database that handles compaction this poorly, but feel free to correct me if Im wrong.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#25

Post by lucian1900 »

functional_test wrote: post #19

Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly? I want to believe all the Mongo hate, but I can't because I always find out that the actual problem was one or more of: * didn't read the manual * poor schema * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) In this case, they hit several: " Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store;" They should be doing compactions and…

Mongo's disk format is extremely wasteful, the database files are gigantic. That is a real problem and there is no way to compact this to anywhere near the size something like Postgres would have for the same data.

Mongo is very bad at managing used memory. In fact it doesn't actually manage memory since it just mmaps its database file.

It also touches disk much more often than would be reasonable, especially for how much memory it uses.

It's a terrible database and it is perfectly legitimate to be annoyed at it being this terrible.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#26

Post by yen223 »

this_user wrote: post #21
busterarm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really would love it if somebody could go back in HN-Time and track the data on Mongo posts & comments. I've always been slightly skeptical about it, but it always seemed to me that there was a long love affair with it overall. Then people started voicing their frustrations and the community was divided and now it looks acrimonious for everyone.

Isn't that true for most of those 'flavour of the month' technologies? First a shiny new piece of technology shows up that promises to solve all the issues you have with a mature and widely adopted solution. People get exited and at some point the media picks up on it und starts the hype cycle. More and more decision makers hear about the technology (probably aided by marketing) and decide to adopt it. Implementation…

coughbitcoincough

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#27

Post by ehwizard »

dev360 wrote: post #24
functional_test wrote: post #19

Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly? I want to believe all the Mongo hate, but I can't because I always find out that the actual problem was one or more of: * didn't read the manual * poor schema * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) In this case, they hit several: " Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store;" They should be doing compactions and…

In all fairness, the compaction is a major pain in Mongo. I get a little worked up about this because I cant think of another database that handles compaction this poorly, but feel free to correct me if Im wrong.

Have you tried turning on power of 2 allocation? In general, it makes compaction much less important. Though online compaction is definitely needed.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#28

Post by egeozcan »

busterarm wrote: post #10
seiji wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PostgreSQL has native json support now. What else is missing? Just a protocol implementation? I'd love to see MongoDB give up and become a PostgreSQL consultancy. Everybody I talk to in the field has the exact same Mongo story: "We love JSON! We use JSON everywhere! We just wanted a DB with native JSON support. We didn't look at the implementation details. We only looked at their marketing. Now we wake up at 3am to f…

I really would love it if somebody could go back in HN-Time and track the data on Mongo posts & comments. I've always been slightly skeptical about it, but it always seemed to me that there was a long love affair with it overall. Then people started voicing their frustrations and the community was divided and now it looks acrimonious for everyone.

Is there an algorithm which measures negativity in a given text? Considering the level of grammatical errors and sarcasm involved, one would need a really complicated system, I'd bet. A google search brought me to Sentiment Analysis page on Wikipedia[0], which, after the initial skimming, doesn't seem to link to any implementations.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#29

Post by jlouis »

functional_test wrote: post #19

Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly? I want to believe all the Mongo hate, but I can't because I always find out that the actual problem was one or more of: * didn't read the manual * poor schema * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) In this case, they hit several: " Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store;" They should be doing compactions and…

For what it is worth, I would think people actually try different things in the existing setup before they decide on doing a switch like this. It is not easy to pull off at all. My guess would be that if you have way more Postgres knowledge in the house, then it is more sensible to run Postgres.

This also drives the amount of administrative overhead needed.

Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”

#30

Post by rlpb »

functional_test wrote: post #19

Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly? I want to believe all the Mongo hate, but I can't because I always find out that the actual problem was one or more of: * didn't read the manual * poor schema * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) In this case, they hit several: " Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store;" They should be doing compactions and…

> Seriously, another case of using Mongo incorrectly?

If a large proportion of MongoDB users are using it incorrectly, then I'd argue that it is a MongoDB problem, if only a documentation and messaging one. Clarity on what is and is not an appropriate use should be prominent.

So, what is this proportion?

Post reply on HN