gqewogpdqa

15 ms·

31.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
I like both databases. Saying that MongoDB is a subset of PostgreSQL is not right, IMO. They are both powerful databases. For legacy off-Oracle or off-SQL Server migration, PostgreSQL sure is an easier place to start (though you still likel
32.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
Hmmm. Isn't customer churn public? Anyways, my guess is that the product is 1) much easier to use (less bells and whistles) 2) mongodb provides more configuration etc without charging for it.
33.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
Totally agree. It should have been called “Scalability and availability (even degraded) first, with as much durability and consistency as possible”. After all, that was the motivation behind the “NoSQL” movement, when databases like Oracle
34.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
Not really true. MongoDB natively supports sharding, multiple indexes, high availability, arrays, sub documents, array traversal, etc - all able to be accessed in your native language with get/set functionality (or via MQL if you want)
35.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
What are the characteristics that make it more relational than non-relational?
36.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
Indeed! That would be a great confirmation.
37.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
Lots of databases have transaction bugs which they hurriedly rush out patches to. MySQL, Oracle, SQL*Server, even the cloud databases like DynamoDB, CosmosDB, Aurora. Looks like MongoDB fixed this one.
38.
by gqewogpdqa 6y ago
I like thinking about the best tools for the job, or "jobs to be done" as Clay Christensen would put it. But why wouldn't you use MongoDB for things that require ACID? MongoDB has had cross-collection ACID transactions since