3 ms·
We chose Mongodb over Riak for a host of reasons, but after working with Mongo, there's times I definitely wish we had gone after Riak, but there's a laundry li
by ismarc 14y ago
We chose Mongodb over Riak for a host of reasons, but after working with Mongo, there's times I definitely wish we had gone after Riak, but there's a laundry list of why it lost out (and where it was super strong as well). I took a look at the list of improvements and one of the biggest reasons we didn't pick Riak (Riak's APIs and model make it significantly difficult to use it and be able to mentor a mediocre developer to working with an existing system...I've got a whole list of details on where, how and why this lost out) doesn't seem to be on the list. There's standardizing the client APIs, which is nice, but wouldn't address a large number of the issues. On the other hand, a lot of the issues could be resolved by wrapping existing APIs (whether directly in Riak or in client APIs/the REST API). We decided not to create our own wrapper because of maintenance and training/documentation concerns.
There's really too much info to go into it here (we spent something like 4-6 months investigating different datastores with actual production data and load levels), but Mark, if you want to sit down and talk about it, or chat via email, feel free to drop me a line. My contact info should be in my profile.
- pharkmillups 14y agoThanks for the feedback. Email incoming.
- gregholmberg 14y agoInteresting. After evaluating carefully for a few months, we didn't feel that MongoDB would work well for our project. Later, we reluctantly gave up on CouchDB. Riak 1.1.x seems to meet all of our design goals so far.