4 ms·
Isn't that defeating the purpose of MondoDB? We're considering switching to it precisely because we're sick of two-tiered approach (MySQL+memcached) and MongoDB
by old-gregg 17y ago
Isn't that defeating the purpose of MondoDB? We're considering switching to it precisely because we're sick of two-tiered approach (MySQL+memcached) and MongoDB promises a built-in near-realtime caching.
Why would I want to lose the power of SQL if I'm not getting anything in return? I thought that "built-in memcached" was what I'd be getting. No?
- cloudhead 17y agomongodb doesn't do concurrency very well -- at least not as good as Redis.
- old-gregg 17y agoI looked up your profile but didn't find any contact info. I am dying to know more about MongoDB limitations and this page isn't helping: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Concurrency http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Concurrency
- dm_mongodb 17y agoconcurrency is much better in the newest versions
- delano 17y agoStorage and caching are two different problems so it's reasonable to assume two separate solutions. In this case, MongoDB is a leap ahead of MySQL; Redis is a leap ahead of Memcached. Both solve the core problems very well and include additional freebies (MongoDB's high-performance aggregate functions and Redis' atomic increments and set and list functions).