5 ms·

> As long as you learn what things it is good at and what things it is not good at it can be quite viable solution, depending on your problem. My experience is

> As long as you learn what things it is good at and what things it is not good at it can be quite viable solution, depending on your problem. My experience is that the things that mongo is "good at", there are competing products that are just as good. Mongo downsides - such as not giving a crap if you lose data - make it a non starter when there are so many better products that actually protect your data.

lmilcin 5y ago
> My experience (...) So what is your experience? I have stated mine. > My experience is that the things that mongo is "good at", there are competing products that are just as good. So what does that mean? Nothing. Every product is a set of compromises. The one that is suitable doesn't need to be perfect in every (or any) respect. It just needs to have the set of compromises that suits your project. > Mongo downsides - such as not giving a crap if you lose data - make it a non starter when there are so many better products that actually protect your data. Database do not (typically) "protect" data. There are some database that make it impossible to remove data once stored, but in general if you count on your database to prevent data loss, you are just waiting for a junior engineer to make a blunder and remove half your database, whether it is MongoDB or Oracle. What all this means is that you cannot count on any database to prevent data loss and you have to organize some kind of way to protect your data. This usually means some kind of backup, snapshotted replica, redo log, etc.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  > Database do not (typically) "protect" data. This is a laugh. There is decades of work and research put into databases and making sure that what you put in comes out correctly and consistently. Things which mongo referred to as "not web scale" for years. Obviously you can lose data when you make stupid mistakes or God decides to smite you - that's not what I was referring to. Pretty good strawman though.

lmilcin 5y ago

> My experience (...) So what is your experience? I have stated mine. > My experience is that the things that mongo is "good at", there are competing products that are just as good. So what does that mean? Nothing. Every product is a set of compromises. The one that is suitable doesn't need to be perfect in every (or any) respect. It just needs to have the set of compromises that suits your project. > Mongo downsides - such as not giving a crap if you lose data - make it a non starter when there are so many better products that actually protect your data. Database do not (typically) "protect" data. There are some database that make it impossible to remove data once stored, but in general if you count on your database to prevent data loss, you are just waiting for a junior engineer to make a blunder and remove half your database, whether it is MongoDB or Oracle. What all this means is that you cannot count on any database to prevent data loss and you have to organize some kind of way to protect your data. This usually means some kind of backup, snapshotted replica, redo log, etc.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
> Database do not (typically) "protect" data. This is a laugh. There is decades of work and research put into databases and making sure that what you put in comes out correctly and consistently. Things which mongo referred to as "not web scale" for years. Obviously you can lose data when you make stupid mistakes or God decides to smite you - that's not what I was referring to. Pretty good strawman though.