3 ms·

This is clearly a flamebait title. The article doesn't say anything about why MongoDB is running out of time other then "PostgreSQL is making real progress as a

by dkhenry 13y ago

This is clearly a flamebait title. The article doesn't say anything about why MongoDB is running out of time other then "PostgreSQL is making real progress as a document store". I think unwittingly the author has identified why MongoDB is not running out of time. It still has a huge lead on RDBMS in a very common and useful workload. If they can continue to make progress while other engines catch up with some of the document oriented features ( as Postgre has done ) then they will still have compelling features to offer. If they do nothing while other engines make progress then of course they will fail. If anything all this points out is that Document stores, like MongoDB, have a real market where they excel and other engines are playing catchup.

simonw 13y ago
The flame bait title was in response to a similar title on zdnet: "MongoDB chief: Why the clock's ticking for relational databases" The author should probably have quoted that title rather than expecting people to follow the link.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jeffdavis 13y ago
"It still has a huge lead on RDBMS in a very common and useful workload." There's very little barrier to entry there, though. With 9.4, PostgreSQL will work better on a lot of JSON workloads than MongoDB. And postgres will continue filling in features to cover essentially all of the use cases MongoDB offers now. MongoDB will have a much harder time supporting things like joins (and normalization which reduces redundancy), new data types, good (and flexible) transaction semantics, sophisticated indexing strategies, cost-based optimizer, useful constraints, etc. This is one reason why XML databases never went anywhere -- existing SQL database systems just said "we can do that, too" and the XML-only systems were relegated to a small niche. Unless MongoDB really continues to innovate, it will have the same fate. JSON+Sharding is a good combination, but it's just not enough to be a lasting player in my opinion.

by dkhenry 13y ago

simonw 13y ago

The flame bait title was in response to a similar title on zdnet: "MongoDB chief: Why the clock's ticking for relational databases" The author should probably have quoted that title rather than expecting people to follow the link.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jeffdavis 13y ago

"It still has a huge lead on RDBMS in a very common and useful workload." There's very little barrier to entry there, though. With 9.4, PostgreSQL will work better on a lot of JSON workloads than MongoDB. And postgres will continue filling in features to cover essentially all of the use cases MongoDB offers now. MongoDB will have a much harder time supporting things like joins (and normalization which reduces redundancy), new data types, good (and flexible) transaction semantics, sophisticated indexing strategies, cost-based optimizer, useful constraints, etc. This is one reason why XML databases never went anywhere -- existing SQL database systems just said "we can do that, too" and the XML-only systems were relegated to a small niche. Unless MongoDB really continues to innovate, it will have the same fate. JSON+Sharding is a good combination, but it's just not enough to be a lasting player in my opinion.