5 ms·

As much as I agree with your sentiment, it still remains one of the most popular databases out there. All us techies can learn something from the hype they mana

As much as I agree with your sentiment, it still remains one of the most popular databases out there. All us techies can learn something from the hype they managed to create.

engendered 12y ago
I really believe that the root of MongoDB's success is how easy they made getting started: A trivial installer, no configuration, and a trivial tutorial -- boom, suddenly a million developers were on their side. It seems ridiculous, really -- developers commit to something because it saves them hours at the start, versus considering the months of work following -- but many technologies followed this curve. MySQL was a lot easier to start with than pgsql, so it won the early battle. PHP was a no-brainer to start with, etc. The lesson is that your tool should default to essentially no configuration, no security, and simple beginnings, and it tends to pay off.
- jpalomaki 12y ago
  Just like node.js. Simple to setup. No frameworks to learn. No need to integrate with web server. Few lines of code, run, and you have a web application responding to the requests.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    It's kind of funny, but MongoDB and node.js are a very natural pairing... very little disconnect. Though I really like RethinkDB, the lack of automated failover handling is about the only concern left keeping me from them. Because of the tooling around it, I'm using ElasticSearch om my next project over both of them. I've also used Cassandra in the past, which was great in some cases, harder in others. For the past couple years, I've tended to pair an SQL database with a key-value/document store depending on the needs. SQL is the canonical source, and saves are mirrored to the distributed database for wider reads. Most no-sql databases sacrifice parts of CAP/ACID in different ways, and can fit certain growth needs. When you are faced with paying a over $30-50k/month (hardware, licenses, bandwidth, redundancy) just to host your sql database on hardware big enough to handle the load, or distribute... distribution becomes an option. For a company with under a million a year in gross revenue, spending $600/year for the database alone is not an option. Even for larger companies it's probably not the best idea. There's something to be said for ease of configuration and administration in that mix.
    - proveanegative 12y ago
      >$30-50k/month That's a lot. Could you elaborate what kind of hardware and software one gets at that price level?
- astral303 12y ago
  The bigger lesson is that we techies tend to disregard the severity of certain real pains (setup, configuration, up front commitment to schema, etc). And let me tell you, all of us know it, but many of us accept it unquestionably.
xorcist 12y ago
I could define market share so SQLite is the most popular database. I could define it so it's MySQL. I could probably even make it Oracle, or DB2. But you do you count to make MongoDB one of the most popular databases out there?
jsjohnst 12y ago
Source needed. Can't make outlandish claims like that without supporting evidence. Here's a couple disproving your claim: https://www.scalebase.com/the-state-of-the-open-source-database-market-mysql-leads-the-way/ https://www.scalebase.com/the-state-of-the-open-source-datab... http://db-engines.com/en/ranking http://db-engines.com/en/ranking
- morsch 12y ago
  So grandparent claims it's one of the most popular databases out there; your first links claims it's in 4th place of all open-source databases; the second link says it's 4th place overall. Sounds fine to me (of course, who knows how those sites came up with those statistics). Maybe he ninja-edited and originally said the most popular, I guess that'd explain the rage.
  - jsjohnst 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure it said it was "the" most popular before, hence the replies, but I could be wrong.
    - stingraycharles 12y ago
      No it was not, because that would be very easy to disprove (I can imagine MySQL and PostgreSQL being far more popular).
- tracker1 12y ago
  disproving.. your second link has MongoDB at #4, which to me would make it "one of the most popular"

As much as I agree with your sentiment, it still remains one of the most popular databases out there. All us techies can learn something from the hype they managed to create.

engendered 12y ago

I really believe that the root of MongoDB's success is how easy they made getting started: A trivial installer, no configuration, and a trivial tutorial -- boom, suddenly a million developers were on their side. It seems ridiculous, really -- developers commit to something because it saves them hours at the start, versus considering the months of work following -- but many technologies followed this curve. MySQL was a lot easier to start with than pgsql, so it won the early battle. PHP was a no-brainer to start with, etc. The lesson is that your tool should default to essentially no configuration, no security, and simple beginnings, and it tends to pay off.

jpalomaki 12y ago
Just like node.js. Simple to setup. No frameworks to learn. No need to integrate with web server. Few lines of code, run, and you have a web application responding to the requests.
- tracker1 12y ago
  It's kind of funny, but MongoDB and node.js are a very natural pairing... very little disconnect. Though I really like RethinkDB, the lack of automated failover handling is about the only concern left keeping me from them. Because of the tooling around it, I'm using ElasticSearch om my next project over both of them. I've also used Cassandra in the past, which was great in some cases, harder in others. For the past couple years, I've tended to pair an SQL database with a key-value/document store depending on the needs. SQL is the canonical source, and saves are mirrored to the distributed database for wider reads. Most no-sql databases sacrifice parts of CAP/ACID in different ways, and can fit certain growth needs. When you are faced with paying a over $30-50k/month (hardware, licenses, bandwidth, redundancy) just to host your sql database on hardware big enough to handle the load, or distribute... distribution becomes an option. For a company with under a million a year in gross revenue, spending $600/year for the database alone is not an option. Even for larger companies it's probably not the best idea. There's something to be said for ease of configuration and administration in that mix.
  - proveanegative 12y ago
    >$30-50k/month That's a lot. Could you elaborate what kind of hardware and software one gets at that price level?
astral303 12y ago
The bigger lesson is that we techies tend to disregard the severity of certain real pains (setup, configuration, up front commitment to schema, etc). And let me tell you, all of us know it, but many of us accept it unquestionably.

xorcist 12y ago

I could define market share so SQLite is the most popular database. I could define it so it's MySQL. I could probably even make it Oracle, or DB2. But you do you count to make MongoDB one of the most popular databases out there?

jsjohnst 12y ago

Source needed. Can't make outlandish claims like that without supporting evidence. Here's a couple disproving your claim: https://www.scalebase.com/the-state-of-the-open-source-database-market-mysql-leads-the-way/ https://www.scalebase.com/the-state-of-the-open-source-datab... http://db-engines.com/en/ranking http://db-engines.com/en/ranking

morsch 12y ago
So grandparent claims it's one of the most popular databases out there; your first links claims it's in 4th place of all open-source databases; the second link says it's 4th place overall. Sounds fine to me (of course, who knows how those sites came up with those statistics). Maybe he ninja-edited and originally said the most popular, I guess that'd explain the rage.
- jsjohnst 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure it said it was "the" most popular before, hence the replies, but I could be wrong.
  - stingraycharles 12y ago
    No it was not, because that would be very easy to disprove (I can imagine MySQL and PostgreSQL being far more popular).
tracker1 12y ago
disproving.. your second link has MongoDB at #4, which to me would make it "one of the most popular"