We use MongoDB in production for a couple of use cases: 1> e-Commerce Product Catalog 2> Home grown CMS for our news/editorial site Both these applications hav

We use MongoDB in production for a couple of use cases: 1> e-Commerce Product Catalog 2> Home grown CMS for our news/editorial site Both these applications have been in production for about a year without a single problem. Both are using the same MongoDB instance - data size is about 200 GB (RAM on the Mongo machine is 16 GB) Both these applications were previously on Oracle and were a pain to maintain. The Mongo schema is simpler and far more maintainable then the RDBMS schema. Backups/Monitoring/Replication on Mongo has never given us any problems. Now, since you claim that an RDBMS can do anything better than MongoDB, can you point me to a simple/elegant/maintainable RDBMS schema for an e-Commerce Product Catalog? I would love to see one. The original post, like most of the 'Why we moved away from MongoDB' posts displays a shocking lack of due-diligence on the part of the development team / tech lead at these firms. All the points under the 'Data that should be good, ends up bad!' section are known facts about MongoDB. All of them are covered in the manual. If you are not fine with any of these points - please don't use MongoDB at all. Don't put it in production. It baffles me how these firms can put MongoDB into production and 'discover' these things later. Instead of ranting at MongoDB, the CTO's of all these firms deserve the sack for lack of due-diligence and putting data at risk. One last point: > ..more flexible than a key-value store MongoDB is not a key-value store.