3 ms·

Lots of hyperbole in your statement. Indeed lists 6200 job listings for mongodb[1], 37 for rethinkdb[2]. [1] https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=mongodb&l= https://w

by jasondc 10y ago

Lots of hyperbole in your statement. Indeed lists 6200 job listings for mongodb[1], 37 for rethinkdb[2]. [1] https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=mongodb&l= https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=mongodb&l= [2] https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=rethinkdb&l= https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=rethinkdb&l=

josephg 10y ago
Rethinkdb is still the new database on the block, and never really found it's feet. Look up Postgres, Cassandra, Kafka, Riak, MySQL/Mariadb or MSSQL. (Or dare I say it, oracle). All of those tools have a long history of reliability and solid engineering.
- hendzen 10y ago
  Ha! MySQL having a long history of reliability... Son have you heard of MyISAM?
  - nurettin 10y ago
    Ah, early 2000s and the table level lock during inserts but lightning fast reads. Postgres was still a fledgling back then.
  - takeda 10y ago
    In many ways MySQL is similar to MongoDB. Both started out being written by people who know nothing about databases and both threw away years of database research. Both gained popularity due to being accepted choice by web-based languages (PHP vs NodeJS) Both were faster than more established competition, only to turn out that both were losing data. Both turned out to be designed fundamentally wrong and had a replacement engines that are more reliable (ISAM/MyISAM vs InnoDB and v0 vs v1). Both still have quirks due to bad decisions in the past, but which can't be easilly fixed due to breaking compatibility.
    - hendzen 10y ago
      You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders). One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny. If MongoDB is heading along the path of MySQL, that's a pretty good path to be on considering that MySQL is used as the store of record at Facebook, Twitter and some parts of Google.
      - SEJeff 10y ago
        And virtually 100% of youtube, if we're talking web scale.
      - takeda 10y ago
        > You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders). My bad, MMAPv1 vs WiredTiger although I think it was obvious what I meant. > One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny. Not sure if that's relevant though, since whole MySQL became property of Oracle (after they acquired Sun).
        hendzen 10y ago
        Yes... its very relevant... If MySQL had acquired InnoDB instead of Oracle there is a good chance they would still exist as an independent entity. That's what I meant by MongoDB's acquisition of WT putting them in control of their own destiny.

by jasondc 10y ago

josephg 10y ago

Rethinkdb is still the new database on the block, and never really found it's feet. Look up Postgres, Cassandra, Kafka, Riak, MySQL/Mariadb or MSSQL. (Or dare I say it, oracle). All of those tools have a long history of reliability and solid engineering.

hendzen 10y ago
Ha! MySQL having a long history of reliability... Son have you heard of MyISAM?
- nurettin 10y ago
  Ah, early 2000s and the table level lock during inserts but lightning fast reads. Postgres was still a fledgling back then.
- takeda 10y ago
  In many ways MySQL is similar to MongoDB. Both started out being written by people who know nothing about databases and both threw away years of database research. Both gained popularity due to being accepted choice by web-based languages (PHP vs NodeJS) Both were faster than more established competition, only to turn out that both were losing data. Both turned out to be designed fundamentally wrong and had a replacement engines that are more reliable (ISAM/MyISAM vs InnoDB and v0 vs v1). Both still have quirks due to bad decisions in the past, but which can't be easilly fixed due to breaking compatibility.
  - hendzen 10y ago
    You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders). One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny. If MongoDB is heading along the path of MySQL, that's a pretty good path to be on considering that MySQL is used as the store of record at Facebook, Twitter and some parts of Google.
    - SEJeff 10y ago
      And virtually 100% of youtube, if we're talking web scale.
    - takeda 10y ago
      > You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders). My bad, MMAPv1 vs WiredTiger although I think it was obvious what I meant. > One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny. Not sure if that's relevant though, since whole MySQL became property of Oracle (after they acquired Sun).
      - hendzen 10y ago
        Yes... its very relevant... If MySQL had acquired InnoDB instead of Oracle there is a good chance they would still exist as an independent entity. That's what I meant by MongoDB's acquisition of WT putting them in control of their own destiny.