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

Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 323 posts

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#81

Post by wmf »

ISV_Damocles wrote: post #73

Now I kinda hope Oracle decides to buy out MongoDB and integrate it into their own cloud. Then Oracle can decide to pull the same bullshit that they did with Google over the Java APIs with the MongoDB APIs but now against their current enemy Amazon (and Microsoft, too). Then a combined Google + Amazon + Microsoft may finally be able to reverse the API Copyright insanity that is hovering ominously over the tech indust…

AWS is preemptively defensive about API licensing claims: "Amazon DocumentDB implements the Apache 2.0 open source MongoDB 3.6 API".

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#82

Post by chrisseaton »

outworlder wrote: post #76

How the heck was this approved by legal? AWS is linking to MongoDB's own documentation. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... Go to any operation, it links to docs.mongodb.com !

Is linking to documentation illegal?

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#83

Post by ahachete »

erikig wrote: post #80
ahachete wrote: post #50

My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…

It would be nice if Amazon provided an API to access the data via SQL alongside the MongoDB API; I've seen quite a number of organizations migrate from mongo to Postgres once they get out of the rapid development phase. This would make that transition butter smooth.

That would make the internal representation used an "API" and thus won't be able to change it in the future.

Apparently, they are using a 1:1 mapping between a collection and a table. Either by flattening the document or by using jsonb or equivalent. I'm not a big believer this is good for performance reasons, at least compared to a more normalized approach like the one we did for https://www.torodb.com But they may change it in the future --if they don't expose the SQL API to their internal representation.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#84

Post by wpietri »

orf wrote: post #37
a13n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's pricy. They're definitely not going after early-stage startups then. But if you have a medium-sized data set (eg. 50+ GB), this is definitely competitively priced. More RAM, storage, compute than Mongo Atlas and Compose for less money. Here's hoping they introduce cheaper options!

50GB is a really small data set.

Is an argument based on the premise that relative terms have absolute meanings a good use of people's time here?

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#86

Post by chx »

uberduper wrote: post #63
orestes910 wrote: post #34

Is it really THAT hard to to run on prem/cloud because of the "complexity that comes with setting up and managing MongoDB clusters at scale"? The documentation is strong, it was built with horizontal scalability in mind. I don't see the struggle.

Yes. Sharded mongo has many pitfalls that can challenge your devs, dbas and devops people. Mongo api without all the mongo scaling problems is pretty awesome.

I must have used a different API, then. Well, obviously not but it could happen because there are more than one ...

I agree with https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-frankenstein-monster-... the contents of this article (and reserve critique for its author). Even the basic query language, in particular $elemMatch is atrocious which has a certain irony to it because Eliot added it when we asked for the functionality (https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-377), so long ago. We have been one of their first commercial support clients, my boss needed to pressure them to accept money for support, they didn't want to...

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#87

Post by Analemma_ »

tootie wrote: post #22
notmyname wrote: post #3

seems an obvious response to https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-issues-new-server-side...

Azure has been running a Mongo-compliant DB under their Cosmos umbrella for quite a while. It's not clear to me that either Azure or AWS are actually running Mongo software under the hood or rather a proprietary DB that uses the Mongo wire protocol. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/mongodb-int...

Doesn’t Azure also have a not-Mongo service also called DocumentDB? Is this the same code? These cloud services are confusing enough when they don’t borrow each other’s names.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#88

Post by manigandham »

outworlder wrote: post #76

How the heck was this approved by legal? AWS is linking to MongoDB's own documentation. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... Go to any operation, it links to docs.mongodb.com !

What is there to approve? Links are public.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#89

Post by plasma »

alrs wrote: post #27
whalesalad wrote: post #14

Serious question: is there any real reason to use Mongo over Elasticsearch?

Elasticsearch is a distributed index, not a reliable document store. You can expect availability problems and data loss. This is fine, because you can rebuild the index from your source of truth.

In my experience with ES, definitely don't treat it as a source of truth; allow it to be rebuilt.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#90

Post by threeseed »

ma2rten wrote: post #56
dstaley wrote: post #18

If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.

Seems to be really aimed at businesses which want to get off of MongoDB desperately.

Not really at all.

It's targeted at enterprises like mine who currently use MongoDB on premise and are looking for a managed solution. The advantage of AWS over Atlas is you can use the same security and governance approaches e.g. IAM policies, ADFS/SAML integration, Cloudwatch/Cloudtrail etc.

Post reply on HN