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

Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 298 posts

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#11

Post by taspeotis »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain in more detail about “my schema is my app layer”? EDIT: fixing autocorrect

MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemaless, which means all of your data validation must take place in your app instead of the database. Your data integrity is then only as good as your weakest validation. Edit: scheme/schema autocorrect typos corrected. Thanks!

> my scheme is my app layer ... MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemeless

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aschema

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#12

Post by MBCook »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #9

Does someone have the time explain what NoSQL Mongo didn’t do that PostgreSQL does? I guess I don’t really understand the structured SQL vs NoSQL when you aren’t accessing directly but via a program. I also don’t understand why they would have supported a NoSQL and object-relational at the same time at any point.

From reading the post it sounds like they want transactions for some of the functionality they’re trying to build. I guess Mongo still doesn’t have those.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#13

Post by [deleted] »

taspeotis wrote: post #11
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemaless, which means all of your data validation must take place in your app instead of the database. Your data integrity is then only as good as your weakest validation. Edit: scheme/schema autocorrect typos corrected. Thanks!

> my scheme is my app layer ... MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemeless https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aschema

[deleted]

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#14

Post by foobiekr »

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #6
alrs wrote: post #2

Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?

Wow was MongoDB really that bad?

A way to think about that question is to ask whether typelessness in general is bad because a lot of the schemaless databases come from that side of the divide.

I’d personally answer yes, but that’s because I believe that typed, schema-generates structures should be pushed all the way from the database to the typescript code on the front end. Changes become something you can deal with with high confidence and things like typos, etc. become impossible. Relational structures enforced in the database (and imho sadly lacking in the intervening layers which is something I’d like to get the time to deal with; though the FoubdationDB record layer certainly has an interesting if unexploited take on it) is a natural extension of this.

But there’s a whole other world where people just don’t want to be tied to constraints. I suspect it’s a personality thing.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#15

Post by nodesocket »

alrs wrote: post #2

Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?

This is a dead horse that's been beaten to death over and over again here on HN. MongoDB is garbage. MongoDB doesn't scale. MongoDB is $h!t says HN users.

It just feels like an echo chamber. Are you running the latest version of MongoDB in a replica set with journaling enabled and write concern set to one? MongoDB has worked great for my uses, up to moderate write/read scale. Sure, if you are running "big data" or enterprise things, it might not be the best choice, but it's not the steaming pile of horse excrement that some HN users try to make it.

Second, for those who still insist that MongoDB is crap, what is the best pure document store database then? I used to champion RethinkDB, but they failed and development has basically stopped. You wouldn't build a business on RethinkDB now a days unfortunately.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#16

Post by AznHisoka »

nodesocket wrote: post #15
alrs wrote: post #2

Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?

This is a dead horse that's been beaten to death over and over again here on HN. MongoDB is garbage. MongoDB doesn't scale. MongoDB is $h!t says HN users. It just feels like an echo chamber. Are you running the latest version of MongoDB in a replica set with journaling enabled and write concern set to one? MongoDB has worked great for my uses, up to moderate write/read scale. Sure, if you are running "big data" or en…

"Are you running the latest version of MongoDB?"

I don't use MongoDB, but I imagine the answer to that question for most people is: No, because I already have an existing product in production with actual customers, and I can't afford to upgrade to the latest version.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#17

Post by chisleu »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain in more detail about “my schema is my app layer”? EDIT: fixing autocorrect

MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemaless, which means all of your data validation must take place in your app instead of the database. Your data integrity is then only as good as your weakest validation. Edit: scheme/schema autocorrect typos corrected. Thanks!

Right, but most people using it use model or data repository patterns to ensure correctness. It does offer nearly infinite flexibility provided you use it correctly. You can add fields without any sort of DB work, you just start adding fields to rows as needed and let it catch up organically.

There are use cases where mongo makes a lot of sense. It's very popular in the node.js / RAD world for sure. I certainly have never been a huge fan by any means. Only relatively recently did they solve distributed writes.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#18

Post by toomuchtodo »

chisleu wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemaless, which means all of your data validation must take place in your app instead of the database. Your data integrity is then only as good as your weakest validation. Edit: scheme/schema autocorrect typos corrected. Thanks!

Right, but most people using it use model or data repository patterns to ensure correctness. It does offer nearly infinite flexibility provided you use it correctly. You can add fields without any sort of DB work, you just start adding fields to rows as needed and let it catch up organically. There are use cases where mongo makes a lot of sense. It's very popular in the node.js / RAD world for sure. I certainly have…

Unfortunately, I’d argue PostgreSQL gets you all the same benefits with JSON storage (fairly equivalent to Mongo docs), while also giving you all the goodness of a relational, transactional, schema enforcing RDBMS. PGSQL became Mongo faster than Mongo could become PGSQL.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#19

Post by metildaa »

nodesocket wrote: post #15
alrs wrote: post #2

Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?

This is a dead horse that's been beaten to death over and over again here on HN. MongoDB is garbage. MongoDB doesn't scale. MongoDB is $h!t says HN users. It just feels like an echo chamber. Are you running the latest version of MongoDB in a replica set with journaling enabled and write concern set to one? MongoDB has worked great for my uses, up to moderate write/read scale. Sure, if you are running "big data" or en…

Modern Mongo still seems to corrupt itself on the Unifi Cloud Controller I have to deal with if there is no disk space left or hard power off. Postgres will be usable after disk space is freed, or when booted back up. This is a really basic reliability issue.

Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend

#20

Post by throwaway5752 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #5
bubaflub wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smug self-righteousness

I’ll allow it. Years later, I’m still miffed at Graylog (centralized logging engine) for having required MongoDB for a small bit of auth and meta storage that could’ve easily been done in MySQL or PostgreSQL (RDS even), forcing the need for that much more ops work for a small Mongo cluster for HA. Everyone deprecating the use of Mongo is a welcoming turn of events. I shall recall these dark days to the next generatio…

"my scheme is my app layer"

To be fair you can do use schema validators in Mongo. Not sure it's widespread in practice. And there are other distributed databases that aren't document stores that have schemas and various subsets of SQL implemented.

Post reply on HN