4 ms·
I'm surprised not to see MongoDB mentioned; it's the document-oriented database I find most intriguing: http://www.mongodb.org http://www.mongodb.org I don't
by darshan 17y ago
I'm surprised not to see MongoDB mentioned; it's the document-oriented database I find most intriguing:
http://www.mongodb.org http://www.mongodb.org
I don't know enough about its alternatives to offer meaningful comparisons, but things I really like about MongoDB in the brief time I've played with it:
- It's trivial to get started with.
- Everything just makes sense.
- No schemata to deal with.
- Excellent Ruby support right out of the box.
For the very simple use cases I tend to deal with, I've always defaulted to throwing my data into MySQL or SQLite, and I think MongoDB will replace them for me.
- ericflo 17y agoI mentioned MongoDB...briefly.
- eldenbishop 17y agoMongoDB is very nice. It's basically a bunch of tables with a binary form of JSON they call BSON instead of "rows". You can add an index to an arbitrary JSON "path" and it literally just works. I just wish they had broken out the layers a bit better. You are stuck with their default persistence for example which is very fast but not particularly safe. I'd sacrifice some speed for safer writes on certain collections. And I am going to repeat the parent's comment that in MongoDB everything "just makes sense". It's just a big bucket with indexes. Everything you need, nothing you don't. So refreshing.