"Its volume on disk is growing 3-4 times faster than the real volume of data it store[sic]"
Are they saying that it has a high constant overhead to the data, or are they saying the storage grows in a super-linear fashion?
“MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
51–60 of 160 posts
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * didn't read the manual > * poor schema > * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) The real world dictates that this happens more often than not. You know why I like Postgres? When I don't read the manual, create a crappy schema, and forgot to maintain the database it STILL seems to work okay.
To be fair, Postgres has automatic vacuuming now, but it is a relatively new feature. Both projects seem to agree that it is not a high-priority item, though there is certainly something to be said about using a mature product, which Mongo is most certainly not. Your comment has made me quite curious to know what people using mature databases of the time were saying about Postgres 19 years ago, when it was roughly th…
[deleted]
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#53Maybe I am just incredibly lucky, but mongodb has worked fine for ridewithgps.com - we are sitting at 670gb of data in mongo (actual DB size, indexes included) and haven't had a problem. Replica sets have been fantastic, I wish there was another DB out there that did auto-failover as cleanly/easily as mongo does. We've had a few server crashes of our primary, and aside from 1-2 seconds or so of errors as requests com…
>data that isn't updated frequently
How often did you update your data then? In my current project I am seeing locking issues in my way soon...
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#54Seriously, 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?
Or, to be even more specific--if there's a Right Way to use a program, that Right Way should be encoded as defaults you have to override (if you know what you're doing), and automated actions you have to disable (if you know what you're doing.)
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#55Seriously, 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…
What about locking? I heard that Mongo has a locking with only DB-granularity.
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * didn't read the manual > * poor schema > * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) The real world dictates that this happens more often than not. You know why I like Postgres? When I don't read the manual, create a crappy schema, and forgot to maintain the database it STILL seems to work okay.
To be fair, Postgres has automatic vacuuming now, but it is a relatively new feature. Both projects seem to agree that it is not a high-priority item, though there is certainly something to be said about using a mature product, which Mongo is most certainly not. Your comment has made me quite curious to know what people using mature databases of the time were saying about Postgres 19 years ago, when it was roughly th…
Yeah, autovacuum was added in 7.4 (2003) and not really to be trusted to do its job without monitoring until 8.3 (2008). But the priorities of the PostgreSQL project have changed in the last about 5 years. Today usability is important.
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#57Lets just say that PostgreSQL answers the criticisms of relational databases that led to NoSQL. The complaints all boiled down to saying that the RDBMS forced you to do things one way and that it was cumbersome. PostgreSQL evolved and fixed the most annoying issues like JSON support and schemaless key-value store support. That's the way open source is supposed to work. Now folks are learning that throwing out the bab…
> PostgreSQL evolved and fixed the most annoying issues like JSON support and schemaless key-value store support. As I recall, automatic sharding was on that list, and pg doesn't attempt to tackle that afaik.
[deleted]
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#58This title is why I've been reading Hacker News less and less.
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#59This is what I call a click bait title.
Re: “MongoDB is dead. Long live Postgresql”
#60Their use case didn't seem especially Mongo-centric, I wonder why they chose to go down the road.
We used MongoDB TokuMX to improve performance:
http://www.tokutek.com/resources/benchmark-results/tokumx-be...