6 ms·
It terrifies me to see this quote from their CTO: "MongoDB's CTO disagrees with this statement arguing that nearly 90% of database installations today would be
by slap_shot 9y ago
It terrifies me to see this quote from their CTO:
"MongoDB's CTO disagrees with this statement arguing that nearly 90% of database installations today would benefit from being replaced with MongoDB."
I used to attend "office hours" at MongoDB's office where guests ask MongoDB employees for help. Most of my questions involved very complex aggregation queries (that would have been trivial in SQL) that even MongoDB employees could not solve.
While I waited to be helped I would listen to other people ask the same questions over and over and over: "How do I join these two collections? How can I <perform a transaction> and ensure both writes succeed/fail?"
Rather than say "MongoDB doesn't offer this functionality" and maybe advise them that this database isn't what they needed for the specific project, the engineers spent a majority of these office hours explaining they don't need schemas, transactions, relations and advised them how to hack together something that worked.
I don't think MongoDB is appropriate for 90% of the database installations out there. I don't know the number, but it isn't 90%, it isn't a majority, and doubt it's a significant number.
MongoDB really needs to explain what it does exceedingly well versus the other distinct offerings in databases (RDBMS, Key Value stores, MPP/warehouses, HDFS, etc) and market that.
What they do right now is somewhere between disingenuous and down right negligent.
Of course its the responsibility of a company and its staff to choose the right tool for the job, but these postmortems are becoming tiring.
- greenshackle2 9y agoMongoDB is web-scale.
- justusw 9y agoSo is /dev/null.
- valarauca1 9y agoDoes /dev/null support sharding?
- kakwa_ 9y ago- "do you even know what a shard is?" - "shards are the secret ingredient in the webscale sauce, they just work" <3
- eip 9y ago> "MongoDB's CTO disagrees with this statement arguing that nearly 90% of database installations today would benefit (MongoDB shareholders) from being replaced with MongoDB." If Mongo's DB was half as good as their marketing team they would really have something useful.
- threeseed 9y agoI really don't understand your comments. You're critical that MongoDB employees whose job it is to help people use the product showed users approaches to implement their use cases. How is that bad or somehow unique ? I've been to Datastax, MySQL, Oracle, Teradata, Cloudera, Hortonworks workshops before and all of them did the same thing. It's their job. Also MongoDB has been crystal clear what it offers in comparison to other databases. It is a document database with easy to use scalability options in a market that doesn't have many of these. And it's mentioned throughout their documentation and by third parties about the pros/cons of document databases and how to appropriately model your data. And yes these postmortems are becoming very tiring. Engineers should not be pushing any technology without a spike to determine whether it's appropriate or not. If you don't have a document orientated data model then don't use a document store.
- pritambaral 9y ago> approaches to implement their use cases. This is where you and your parent disagree. Your parent believes they showed "hacks" and not "approaches to implement their use cases".
- owebmaster 9y agoI do think that mongodb is appropriate for 90% of the database installations, but also are mysql and postgres. Most of it is wordpress anyway.