2 ms·
Fascinating read. Those suggesting Mongo are missing the point. The author clearly mentioned that they want to work in the relational space. Choosing Mongo wou
by rednafi 2y ago
Fascinating read. Those suggesting Mongo are missing the point.
The author clearly mentioned that they want to work in the relational space. Choosing Mongo would require refactoring a significant part of the codebase.
Also, databases like MySQL, Postgres, and SQLite have neat indexing features that Mongo still lacks.
The author wanted to move away from a client-server database.
And finally, while wanting a 6.4TB single binary is wild, I presume that’s exactly what’s happening here. You couldn’t do that with Mongo.
- christophilus 2y agoThe binary would only contain the database engine; not the database. It’s probably a few MB, if I had to guess.
- taurknaut 2y agoPresumably the database needs to be distributed to servers, too. The engine needs to access something. This is a necessity whether or not it's referred to as a binary.
- taurknaut 2y agoThis comment appears to be the only place between article and thread where mongo getting recommended is even mentioned. Maybe stop giving them free press. I certainly haven't heard anyone seriously suggest them for about about ten years now. Edit: ok the other guy mentioning mongo is clearly being sarcastic
- sohzm 2y agothe person suggesting mongodb in the replies isnt serious, its just a meme reference