6 ms·

In the real world though, both groups still need to use what works in practice. It's entirely possible for MongoDB to work sufficiently well for a certain group

In the real world though, both groups still need to use what works in practice. It's entirely possible for MongoDB to work sufficiently well for a certain group of people in a reasonably cost effective way. Exaggerating its problems (as bad as they are) doesn't add weight to your agrement. For example, global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that. Lots of data problems aren't "big data", they're barely a medium. I'll agree MongoDB is not a terribly well engineered database however I don't agree that SQL is always the best alternative in these simpler scenarios. There are lots of things wrong with using SQL to solve every data problem. I also don't agree that knowing SQL is equivalent to understanding "set theory". I've known plenty of DBAs who don't know the first thing about set theory and really just know just enough to install the software and piece together the APIs. The fact that one has chosen SQL doesn't make them good at working with data any more than choosing MongoDB makes someone bad, or implies they don't understand "set theory". What concerns me mostly though isn't the MongoDB issue but that we can't discus the issue in a professional way, without elitism and distain dripping through. You seem to have confused "computer science" with "anything of value". I happen to believe there are more things worth knowing that are of value to practical software development than just the computer science (not to minimize that of course).

timr 13y ago
"In the real world though, both groups still need use what works in practice." In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. "global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that" In which case, you can just as easily use a relational database and avoid the chance of problems altogether.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. And they're a pain the ass and don't mix well with the kinds of programs many want to write. Mongo clearly fills a niche that relational databases don't serve well; if it didn't, no one would use it.
  - andrix 13y ago
    I think it's not a fight. RDBMS has been there for many years and they have proved to work in many areas. NoSQL databases born for new needs people was asking to have in their new projects. Both would probably works perfect for many cases, but nosql databases are very suitable for scenarios when you do not require an strict schema, and also they are simple to setup. I still think MongoDB is great for many applications as many companies are using it for their data needs (like Foresquare), and the same with RDBMS like MySQL, that lot of big fishes use them for different parts of their architecture (facebook, twitter, etc). In the end, each option has pros/cons, but one will be better for your use case.
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    Could you actually go into some detail about these mythical problems with actual databases? Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable, but I've never gotten an actual explanation as to what problems they are having. As both a developer and a sysadmin, postgresql is much less of a pain in the ass than mongodb. And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable You really think tossing out insults like that is a way to have a reasoned conversation? I think not, come back when you can converse like an adult. > And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. Then you need more experience as a programmer perhaps. I'm a programer and a SQL guy, and I'm fully aware of what a pain SQL can be in an application and if you don't see the ease of programming things like NoSQL databases or Mongo bring to programming, you aren't paying attention or you're lying to yourself about how well SQL fits with code.
ownagefool 13y ago
SQL isn't the alternative, it's the standard and noSQL databases are supposed to offer extra value to cause you to migrate. According to these articles, MongoDB doesn't offer any real additional value, thus you shouldn't use it. It's not about elitism, it's about making good decisions. That said, given all the hype with companies that hire, protesting loudly might not be the best short term personal decision. Meh.
- threeseed 13y ago
  These articles are just one side of the picture which gets heavily upvoted on HN. And of course it is about elitism. Listen to yourself. "It's about making good decisions". I mean who are you to judge from the outside what technology a company should use for a specific use cases ?
  - ownagefool 13y ago
    I wasn't specifically talking about the articles, just in general point that'll I'm happy to stand behind. I'll happily repeat it: unless you have a specfic use case, RDBMS is the default and it should be so. Now if you have a specific use case, fair enough, but the aforementioned examples don't honestly seem to be valid reason to throw our the advantages of RDBMS.

timr 13y ago

"In the real world though, both groups still need use what works in practice." In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. "global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that" In which case, you can just as easily use a relational database and avoid the chance of problems altogether.

gnaritas 13y ago
> In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. And they're a pain the ass and don't mix well with the kinds of programs many want to write. Mongo clearly fills a niche that relational databases don't serve well; if it didn't, no one would use it.
- andrix 13y ago
  I think it's not a fight. RDBMS has been there for many years and they have proved to work in many areas. NoSQL databases born for new needs people was asking to have in their new projects. Both would probably works perfect for many cases, but nosql databases are very suitable for scenarios when you do not require an strict schema, and also they are simple to setup. I still think MongoDB is great for many applications as many companies are using it for their data needs (like Foresquare), and the same with RDBMS like MySQL, that lot of big fishes use them for different parts of their architecture (facebook, twitter, etc). In the end, each option has pros/cons, but one will be better for your use case.
- papsosouid 13y ago
  Could you actually go into some detail about these mythical problems with actual databases? Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable, but I've never gotten an actual explanation as to what problems they are having. As both a developer and a sysadmin, postgresql is much less of a pain in the ass than mongodb. And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable You really think tossing out insults like that is a way to have a reasoned conversation? I think not, come back when you can converse like an adult. > And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. Then you need more experience as a programmer perhaps. I'm a programer and a SQL guy, and I'm fully aware of what a pain SQL can be in an application and if you don't see the ease of programming things like NoSQL databases or Mongo bring to programming, you aren't paying attention or you're lying to yourself about how well SQL fits with code.

ownagefool 13y ago

SQL isn't the alternative, it's the standard and noSQL databases are supposed to offer extra value to cause you to migrate. According to these articles, MongoDB doesn't offer any real additional value, thus you shouldn't use it. It's not about elitism, it's about making good decisions. That said, given all the hype with companies that hire, protesting loudly might not be the best short term personal decision. Meh.

threeseed 13y ago
These articles are just one side of the picture which gets heavily upvoted on HN. And of course it is about elitism. Listen to yourself. "It's about making good decisions". I mean who are you to judge from the outside what technology a company should use for a specific use cases ?
- ownagefool 13y ago
  I wasn't specifically talking about the articles, just in general point that'll I'm happy to stand behind. I'll happily repeat it: unless you have a specfic use case, RDBMS is the default and it should be so. Now if you have a specific use case, fair enough, but the aforementioned examples don't honestly seem to be valid reason to throw our the advantages of RDBMS.