4 ms·

Oops. Turns out I was right. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23271211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23271211 The timing of this is absolutely beau

• scarface74 6y ago
  So now we shouldn’t ever trust a project because they don’t have good technical writers? I don’t have a dog in the Mongo fight. I haven’t done an implementation on top of it in years and probably the next time I do something with “Mongo” it will probably be AWS’s Document DB with Mongo support. That’s based on AWS’s own code and storage tier and doesn’t have the same characteristics as Mongo proper.
  • tpxl 6y ago
    For what it's worth, Document DB doesn't support a lot of the Mongo API, such as $$ROOT in aggregations, and it can't use indices on (paraphrased) "SELECT * FROM x WHERE id IN [list]" if the list length is > 10. If you ask me, if there's something worse than Mongo it's Document DB.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Given a choice between the limitations of DynamoDB and DocumentDB, DocumentDB is still far more versatile and written on top of the same storage engine and is just as reliable. And yes I know most of the data modeling tricks around using GSI’s and LSI’s.
  • doublesCs 6y ago
    > So now we shouldn’t ever trust a project because they don’t have good technical writers? > the newer MongoDB 4.2.6 has more problems including “retrocausal transactions” where a transaction reverses order so that a read can see the result of a future write.