PostgreSQL Outperforms MongoDB in New Round of Tests

For example when site admin says "I want new archive that I can fill with items, items will have Id (automatically), Name (string), IsMale (bool)". He also want to do complex queries on this data as well. That's where NoSQL comes to help.

And to answer why exactly MongoDb is so popular - it's because it has awesome driver support for every popular language.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand here. It's a simple solution to EAV/nulltable nightmare.

MongoDB stores Metadata, (nearly) uncompressed on a per document basis, so of course it uses way more diskspace. It doesn't store the data in any efficient way either.

Also it's pretty much unoptimized, compared to Postgres which has been around for a really long time so it's kinda slow.

Many functions in MongoDB are actually implemented in JavaScript, not C. So that's also a factor, even when I guess it's not the big one here.

MongoDB has a lot of limitations that can really bite yo (document size even though that's the smallest (gridfs), how you can do indices, even limitations in how your query can look like, etc

The only thing that's good about MongoDB is that it's nice for getting something up and running quickly and that it's a charm to scale (in many different kinds), compared to PostgreSQL. If PostgreSQL had something built in(!) coming at least close to that (and development has a strong focus there) it would be perfect.

For all these reasons many companies actually have hybrid systems, because sometimes one thing makes sense and sometimes the other.

The benchmark seems strange, cause there are many SQL and NoSQL databases that are faster and that's a kinda well-known fact. I think everyone who ever had to decide on a database system has known that, even without a benchmark.

This makes it kinda look like an advertisement (look at the company behind the blog).

Using PostgreSQL 9.3 with JSON for a while now and it's great. Also I know it is possible to scale PostgreSQL and it's really nice. Still a lot more complexity involved (again, depending on the use case).

Just use the right tool and please let's stop with such shallow comparisons, because I think it kinda harms the reputation of database engineers and system architects - and the authors of such comparison. When you look for real comparisons and example use cases, typical patterns or just some help one always stumbles across these things and they tend to quickly be out of date too, cause all well-known databases have a lot of active development going on.

Why does that make this article suspicious? Obviously they stand to benefit from more people using PostgreSQL, but they've been exceedingly clear with their methodology - their benchmark is available on Github: https://github.com/EnterpriseDB/pg_nosql_benchmark.

That's a bit scary. There has been several successful attacks against virtual currency exchanges that use MongoDB, utilizing the eventual consistency to your advantage.

If you handle money, you don't want any inconsistencies in your database, no matter how temporary. You can work around these of course but you really need to know what you're doing.