5 ms·

I never got around to using Mongo as my main doc db because it was incredibly hard to find a management tool. I now use json supported functions in SQL Server

I never got around to using Mongo as my main doc db because it was incredibly hard to find a management tool. I now use json supported functions in SQL Server and do not have the need for a different type of database. SQL Server handles my small 'documents db' implementation with the infrastructure of a RDMS. Win win for me. To me Mongo just got popular by mistake way too early. It's like having a celebrity retweet your post because they liked what they saw at the time, exposing you to the world where everyone now thinks you have something important to say. Not surprisingly, you don't!

mey 8y ago
I really like SQL Server, especially the dev environment, 1st and 3rd party management tools. Not sure if they have improved this, but replication was a limiting factor and the pricing changes a few years back pushed it down my preference list.
mmsimanga 8y ago
I don't have any links to prove my point but I suspect we need to thank Mongo for pushing the traditional SQL databases to support JSON.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  I think the fact that the Cosmos DB "document db" API clones the MongoDB API, of all the available options, is a link in that chain.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  FWIW and insofar as I can recollect, JSON was supported by Postgres before Mongo was a thing, and Mongo was built based on Postgres.
  - anarazel 8y ago
    No, that's not correct: Initial json support in PG was added in early 2012 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=5384a73f98d9829725186a7b65bf4f8adb3cfaf1 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit... whereas mongodb was made public in 2009, according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB I don't see how Mongo was built based on Postgres, either?
    - ak4g 8y ago
      My guess is the grandparent is (mis-)remembering the kerfuffle[0] around mongo shipping a copy of PG as a "BI Connector". But yeah, the timeline is off, that was in 2015. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10697692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10697692
      - ddebernardy 8y ago
        Actually, no. I'm remembering asking myself how Mongo worked back when it launched, and reading somewhere that it was a heavily modded Postgres under the hood (like Amazon Redshift, which makes no secret about it, since). I might be misremembering, though. And there's a possibility that what I read then was inaccurate.
    - ddebernardy 8y ago
      I might admittedly be remembering this wrong, but I seem to recollect that Postgres had a couple of (unofficial) contrib modules to support JSON back in 2008 or so, and that (unfortunately buried in Postgres vs Mongo articles) the initial release of Mongo was actually a fork of Postgres for all practical intents. The relevant data structures and indexing mechanisms (hstore, tsvector, gin, gist) were all available -- if only experimentally -- before Mongo launched.
- zorga 8y ago
  Why? Seriously, JSON is lame, it's an idiotic trend, a fashion from the UI that's infected the back end for no gain whatsoever for anyone not using JavaScript. XML is better and we've just watch JSON slowly reinvent everything XML already had.
  - Too 8y ago
    I think he meant json as a data model, ie nested objects, arrays and PODs, rather than json as a textual representation..
vonseel 8y ago
I have seen so many critical articles of Mongodb. Even if I did have a use-case particularly well-suited for it, I would never consider using Mongo. As an aside, I did consider using SQL Server until I looked at the licensing fees. Why would someone choose SQL Server when options like Postgres or MySQL/MariaDB exist? Is there a specific SQL feature (MSSQL or Oracle SQL) provides which is not available elsewhere and would be a core feature which the companies data storage is built upon? I.e. that feature is so important that the companies product architecture would be fundamentally different without using the proprietary database.
- magduf 8y ago
  >Why would someone choose SQL Server when options like Postgres or MySQL/MariaDB exist? Because they're in an organization where they're already invested in Microsoft technologies, so it's much easier to just use MS's DB instead of something entirely different that doesn't integrate as well. It's similar to why many people use Apple software products that aren't as good as alternatives: if you already have an Apple platform/device, it's easier and better integrated and likely already installed.
  - vonseel 8y ago
    Understood, but I should have prefaced my question with “for greenfield / new development”.
    - magduf 8y ago
      My answer is still the same, and actually assumed that. No one is really "greenfield": everyone is already invested in some technology to some extent. If your organization is already invested in MS technologies, your managers only know MS, and your developers only know MS/.NET/etc., then the choice is pretty obvious: MS SQL Server. Switching to Linux/PostgreSQL would be a sea change for an organization like that (even though, IMO, it would be better in the long run). Similarly, if your organization is already a Linux-based one, running Linux servers for everything, adopting SQL Server would be a huge PITA and would likely be laughed out of the room if suggested.

mey 8y ago

I really like SQL Server, especially the dev environment, 1st and 3rd party management tools. Not sure if they have improved this, but replication was a limiting factor and the pricing changes a few years back pushed it down my preference list.

mmsimanga 8y ago

I don't have any links to prove my point but I suspect we need to thank Mongo for pushing the traditional SQL databases to support JSON.

WorldMaker 8y ago
I think the fact that the Cosmos DB "document db" API clones the MongoDB API, of all the available options, is a link in that chain.
ddebernardy 8y ago
FWIW and insofar as I can recollect, JSON was supported by Postgres before Mongo was a thing, and Mongo was built based on Postgres.
- anarazel 8y ago
  No, that's not correct: Initial json support in PG was added in early 2012 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=5384a73f98d9829725186a7b65bf4f8adb3cfaf1 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit... whereas mongodb was made public in 2009, according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB I don't see how Mongo was built based on Postgres, either?
  - ak4g 8y ago
    My guess is the grandparent is (mis-)remembering the kerfuffle[0] around mongo shipping a copy of PG as a "BI Connector". But yeah, the timeline is off, that was in 2015. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10697692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10697692
    - ddebernardy 8y ago
      Actually, no. I'm remembering asking myself how Mongo worked back when it launched, and reading somewhere that it was a heavily modded Postgres under the hood (like Amazon Redshift, which makes no secret about it, since). I might be misremembering, though. And there's a possibility that what I read then was inaccurate.
  - ddebernardy 8y ago
    I might admittedly be remembering this wrong, but I seem to recollect that Postgres had a couple of (unofficial) contrib modules to support JSON back in 2008 or so, and that (unfortunately buried in Postgres vs Mongo articles) the initial release of Mongo was actually a fork of Postgres for all practical intents. The relevant data structures and indexing mechanisms (hstore, tsvector, gin, gist) were all available -- if only experimentally -- before Mongo launched.
zorga 8y ago
Why? Seriously, JSON is lame, it's an idiotic trend, a fashion from the UI that's infected the back end for no gain whatsoever for anyone not using JavaScript. XML is better and we've just watch JSON slowly reinvent everything XML already had.
- Too 8y ago
  I think he meant json as a data model, ie nested objects, arrays and PODs, rather than json as a textual representation..

vonseel 8y ago

I have seen so many critical articles of Mongodb. Even if I did have a use-case particularly well-suited for it, I would never consider using Mongo. As an aside, I did consider using SQL Server until I looked at the licensing fees. Why would someone choose SQL Server when options like Postgres or MySQL/MariaDB exist? Is there a specific SQL feature (MSSQL or Oracle SQL) provides which is not available elsewhere and would be a core feature which the companies data storage is built upon? I.e. that feature is so important that the companies product architecture would be fundamentally different without using the proprietary database.

magduf 8y ago
>Why would someone choose SQL Server when options like Postgres or MySQL/MariaDB exist? Because they're in an organization where they're already invested in Microsoft technologies, so it's much easier to just use MS's DB instead of something entirely different that doesn't integrate as well. It's similar to why many people use Apple software products that aren't as good as alternatives: if you already have an Apple platform/device, it's easier and better integrated and likely already installed.
- vonseel 8y ago
  Understood, but I should have prefaced my question with “for greenfield / new development”.
  - magduf 8y ago
    My answer is still the same, and actually assumed that. No one is really "greenfield": everyone is already invested in some technology to some extent. If your organization is already invested in MS technologies, your managers only know MS, and your developers only know MS/.NET/etc., then the choice is pretty obvious: MS SQL Server. Switching to Linux/PostgreSQL would be a sea change for an organization like that (even though, IMO, it would be better in the long run). Similarly, if your organization is already a Linux-based one, running Linux servers for everything, adopting SQL Server would be a huge PITA and would likely be laughed out of the room if suggested.