A complete history with all the data ... unlike MongoDB. Boom tish etc.
I never got a definite answer: What problem does MongoDB even try to solve?
The problem of schemas slowing your development.
MongoDB History
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: MongoDB History
#12The "Mongo DB is Web Scale" video just turned 10 years old. I'm pretty sure that was a big factor in MongoDB not being taken seriously by many people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
Ah good memories. Such gems.
"relation dbs have impotence mismatch"
"does /dev/null support sharding"
"redis will kick memcache's ass"
Re: MongoDB History
#13Lots of interesting info, and I really like working with MongoDB. But I am baffled by the claim that "MongoDB is the king." In all the circles I work in, I only hear Mongo dismissed as a joke. Unfortunately the company's dismissiveness of RDBMSes, their hubris in pushing NoSQL, and their blunders over what are extremely poor default settings all combine to make MongoDB something I don't see anyone taking seriously. I…
I interviewed recently at a payment provider that is rewriting its PHP/Mysql monolith in Java & go microservices with MongoDb.
The architect would praise static typing but would prefer MongoDb "because it's easier to add a column". It felt weird but I've never used MongoDb so I could not really argue about it.
Re: MongoDB History
#14Re: MongoDB History
#15A complete history with all the data ... unlike MongoDB. Boom tish etc.
I never got a definite answer: What problem does MongoDB even try to solve?
Schemaless data (or at least schema-on-read rather than on-write) is the primary feature. Store JSON documents and index on any field.
Also it was great at sharding and scaling horizontally when first released, and one of the few options available at that time. It's since been eclipsed by much better systems that don't have such a convoluted and fragile setup.
These days there's not much benefit over a JSON field in a relational database, unless you're really invested in JSON/Javascript through your entire stack and want that to reach into the database as well.
Re: MongoDB History
#16Lots of interesting info, and I really like working with MongoDB. But I am baffled by the claim that "MongoDB is the king." In all the circles I work in, I only hear Mongo dismissed as a joke. Unfortunately the company's dismissiveness of RDBMSes, their hubris in pushing NoSQL, and their blunders over what are extremely poor default settings all combine to make MongoDB something I don't see anyone taking seriously. I…
I interviewed recently at a payment provider that is rewriting its PHP/Mysql monolith in Java & go microservices with MongoDb. The architect would praise static typing but would prefer MongoDb "because it's easier to add a column". It felt weird but I've never used MongoDb so I could not really argue about it.
Sounds like a bad architect or someone who only knows surface features and doesn't have experience with the actual databases.
Adding a column is not hard in any relational database, and pretty much all modern ones support no-downtime transactional schema updates with backfills, concurrent index builds, etc.
Also the schema always exists somewhere, and it's usually to put it in the database so it's next to (and validates) your data rather than keeping spread out in your application code.
Re: MongoDB History
#17The "Mongo DB is Web Scale" video just turned 10 years old. I'm pretty sure that was a big factor in MongoDB not being taken seriously by many people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
Anybody who makes complex technology decisions based on marketing copy doesn't deserve to be taken seriously either. Not that I think these people actually exist other than in the minds of many HN commenters.
Oracle on their website right now says "we lead the market in autonomous, cloud, and applications technologies".
I assume you think developers are going to suddenly abandon AWS, Python etc and move entirely to an Oracle stack based off this quote ?
Re: MongoDB History
#18MongoDB still has an awful reputation on Hacker News but I really appreciate the take from "Why RethinkDB Failed" [0]:
> People wanted RethinkDB to be fast on workloads they actually tried, rather than “real world” workloads we suggested. For example, they’d write quick scripts to measure how long it takes to insert ten thousand documents without ever reading them back. MongoDB mastered these workloads brilliantly, while we fought the losing battle of educating the market.
> almost everyone was asking “how is RethinkDB different from MongoDB?” We worked hard to explain why correctness, simplicity, and consistency are important, but ultimately these weren’t the metrics of goodness that mattered to most users.
> But over time I learned to appreciate the wisdom of the crowds. MongoDB turned regular developers into heroes when people needed it, not years after the fact. It made data storage fast, and let people ship products quickly. And over time, MongoDB grew up. One by one, they fixed the issues with the architecture, and now it is an excellent product. It may not be as beautiful as we would have wanted, but it does the job, and it does it well.
In my mind Mongo is a database that had great developer experience, excellent marketing, and some seriously bad technical gotchas. But marketing drove momentum long enough to cover bills, grab the market, and address most of the gotchas, so now it's a decent DB.
[0]: https://www.defmacro.org/2017/01/18/why-rethinkdb-failed.htm...
Re: MongoDB History
#19A complete history with all the data ... unlike MongoDB. Boom tish etc.
I never got a definite answer: What problem does MongoDB even try to solve?
MongoDB is the fastest and easiest to scale schema-on-read document store.
So if your domain model is document orientated e.g. a star schema with dozens of joins, where you don't know the schema upfront or you have polymorphic relationships it is a really useful way to store your data.
Re: MongoDB History
#20Lots of interesting info, and I really like working with MongoDB. But I am baffled by the claim that "MongoDB is the king." In all the circles I work in, I only hear Mongo dismissed as a joke. Unfortunately the company's dismissiveness of RDBMSes, their hubris in pushing NoSQL, and their blunders over what are extremely poor default settings all combine to make MongoDB something I don't see anyone taking seriously. I…
[deleted]