241–250 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was what was particularly interesting to me - that they went to the effort of writing a purely technical article on the particulars of how parts of their environment operate, and to publish it on their platform even when that's not the sort of content they're known for.
It's not their main platform though: > Digital Blog > A blog by the Guardian's internal Digital team. We build the Guardian website, mobile apps, Editorial tools, revenue products, support our infrastructure and manage all things tech around the Guardian
It's not a great article tbh, it's well written but it shows the clear lack of knowledge running a backend. The title should be "we didn't know what we were doing so we switched to a managed DB" I mean yeah who knew that blocking NTP therefore time drifting would break everything... For those criticizing MongoDB, Fortnite generates $3B/year and runs on MongoDB, you should tell them it's a mistake and that they should…
But I'm also one of the the people that still prefers to run MySQL over PostreSQL just because the tooling is still far superior
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are bunch of companies behind PG actually. From Fujitsu and EnterpriseDB to smaller ones like 2ndQuadrant, PostgresPro, CitusDB and many others.
Those companies did not create PG, the company behind Mongo did and does not want Google / AWS / MS to make a service using Mongo for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how many insurmountable SQL performance problems can be surmounted by putting things in 3rd normal form.
But denormalization is one strategy to improve the performance of a rdbms.
1. You start from a normalized schema.
2. You denormalize in a structured way (eg dimensional modelling), rather than any old how.
3. You test the change.
Database query planners work better when they can take logically-safe shortcuts in their work. In large part that comes down to a properly-constructed schema.
Denormalizing makes it harder for the query planner. It also means you will probably lose out on future query planner enhancements.
Generally speaking, if someone wants to denormalize, I want to know the actual business value created and that the business risk is properly understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad that RedHat didn't feel that way when they were sponsoring kernel development, or that Netscape had panicked and locked down Netscape instead of opening it up, or that Sun had given Java a terrible license. Or Google and Kubernetes. LinkedIn and Kafka. Airbnb and Air Flow. I could keep going like this all day. Mongo made a lot of money building a projects that runs on top of many other projects that were rel…
So Redis, HAproxy, MongoDB, ect .. should feel good that nowdays multi-billion $ companies take your product and put more people on it that you do internally, sell it and give you nothing? Explain to me how a startup of 10-20 people can compete against AWS once they grab what you're working on to make an AWS service? Changes Mongo, Redis made to their licence were made to protected against those practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO there is still a place for schema-less document databases. It's just that Postgres's JSON columns mean you can get the best of both worlds, which makes Mongo look weak by comparison.
I would rather say, "Postgres's JSONB provides a hybrid compromise that may meet the needs of many users." JSONB feels like it's closer to creating more complex data types that are less primitive than those that SQL currently allows. The real driver of the NoSQL movement, I believe, was that everybody wanted to be the next big social network or content aggregation site. Everybody wanted to be the next Facebook, Insta…
Some array magic and jsonb_agg and suddenly you can get easy to json decode results instead of having to play with rows in your app. Yes you can also do it with xml_agg but these days people tend to consider anything xml as evil (they're wrong).
I really don't get this as an indictment of MongoDB, or their OpsManager product really. They used the version of OpsManager that doesn't manage the deployment - is specifically not a deployment manager. Mongo does offer a managed version of this software, which the author mentions - with a justification for why they couldn't use that offering. However, I think this was the main mistake that The Guardian made. As the…
Re criticism of OpsManager - I think this is fair, given the sheer number of hoops we had to jump through to get a functioning OpsManager system running in AWS - no provided cloudformation, AMIs etc. £40,000 a year felt like a lot for a system that took 2 or more weeks of dev time to install/upgrade. The authentication schema thing was a bit of a pain as well, though we were going from a very nearly EOL version of Mongo (2.4 I think).