3 ms·

I feel like the vast majority of people that bash on MongoDB didn't fully understand it and what it was good for when they tried it. We've been using it in prod

by james33 12y ago

I feel like the vast majority of people that bash on MongoDB didn't fully understand it and what it was good for when they tried it. We've been using it in production for nearly 3 years in online games and have had nothing but good experiences with it. This 3.0 release will be yet another big step forward and we are excited to reap the continued benefits.

nemo44x 12y ago
That's mainly correct. Or they used for it something it simply isn't suitable for. You can't just throw random data into it and expect it to work. Proper document modeling and understanding write concern solve almost all the problems people have with MongoDB. It still has a ways to go but so many of the comments here are issues from way back in v2.0. Regardless, it's still very popular and only gaining popularity. And improving.
- vkjv 12y ago
  Agreed. I've also been using it in production for years and the hate is often misguided. My issues are almost never with lack of features, but almost always with the cavalier attitude towards bugs, even catastrophic ones.
gaius 12y ago
But the vendor told them it was a general purpose database...
dcosson 12y ago
> didn't fully understand it and what it was good for This is why I'm not a fan, its "sweet spot" , in my experience, is not very big and not very interesting. It requires a small data set where at least the indexes (but ideally the entire "working set") fits in memory on a single server, in which case it can get pretty good read throughput. But there are a lot of options that perform great in this use case, including just mysql or postgres. Maybe the flexibility of being schema-less is a win for some people, in which case great, I'm glad it's available as an option. But when the company claims things like it's the best database for every use case, people are bound to use it wrong, get burned, and then hate it. Where I used it it had been the exact wrong choice to make, a data set bigger than ~2x a single server's memory (and growing) and with relatively high write throughput, and it was an absolute nightmare.

by james33 12y ago

nemo44x 12y ago

That's mainly correct. Or they used for it something it simply isn't suitable for. You can't just throw random data into it and expect it to work. Proper document modeling and understanding write concern solve almost all the problems people have with MongoDB. It still has a ways to go but so many of the comments here are issues from way back in v2.0. Regardless, it's still very popular and only gaining popularity. And improving.

vkjv 12y ago
Agreed. I've also been using it in production for years and the hate is often misguided. My issues are almost never with lack of features, but almost always with the cavalier attitude towards bugs, even catastrophic ones.

gaius 12y ago

But the vendor told them it was a general purpose database...

dcosson 12y ago

> didn't fully understand it and what it was good for This is why I'm not a fan, its "sweet spot" , in my experience, is not very big and not very interesting. It requires a small data set where at least the indexes (but ideally the entire "working set") fits in memory on a single server, in which case it can get pretty good read throughput. But there are a lot of options that perform great in this use case, including just mysql or postgres. Maybe the flexibility of being schema-less is a win for some people, in which case great, I'm glad it's available as an option. But when the company claims things like it's the best database for every use case, people are bound to use it wrong, get burned, and then hate it. Where I used it it had been the exact wrong choice to make, a data set bigger than ~2x a single server's memory (and growing) and with relatively high write throughput, and it was an absolute nightmare.