3 ms·
They don't give much details, but it sounds like a very superficial need that could be accommodated by Redis, Memcached, AppFabric, and on and on. Kind of surpr
by ergo98 16y ago
They don't give much details, but it sounds like a very superficial need that could be accommodated by Redis, Memcached, AppFabric, and on and on. Kind of surprised that they chose MongaDB as it's far from the fastest competitor.
- dschn 16y agoJust speculation, but the built-in map/reduce is probably quite useful.
- ergo98 16y agoPerhaps, but the description essentially said that there is a custom python layer that aggregates the data, and they punt it into MongoDB with some SQL extraction pattern simply to store it into that silo. e.g. If I run a query for NAME LIKE 'BLAH%' it stores that resultset. If I run NAME LIKE 'BLAP%' it stores that resultset. If someone else comes and runs either of them, only a direct match will pull my prior results. It's okay, but it's no big win or case study.
- ehwizard 16y agoThey needed to be able to do some queries on various indexes, so key/value stores wouldn't work. Also MongoDB tends to be only 10% slower then memcache, so not sure why you think its not fast...