|
|
|
|
|
|
by Goopplesoft
3100 days ago
|
|
|
I can easily think of a few good reasons (it is actually a pretty good database for the right use-cases). Can you actually not find a good reason or are you just continuing the exaggerating echo chamber around mongodb's earlier failures for 'points'? Plus this has very little to do with the article which is a very very well done technical analysis of different solutions with very little opining. |
|
|
My point would be that there are no "right" use-cases, I pointed it out because the article was talking about a specific thing: as the article points out in the outlined scenario: "It’s clear now, that throughput for PostgreSQL and MongoDB now is almost the same before the spinlock performance degradation hits MongoDB."
So the article points out there is a significant performance degradation after a certain number of connections in MongoDB, such things won't surprise me anymore I'll add it to the heap of things wrong with MongoDB, thats why I was making the comment.
> "We’ve got so far that throughput of PostgreSQL and MongoDB is the same for read workloads. Is it surprising? Not at all - I’m going to show you, that under the hood all our databases use more or less the same data structures and the same approach to store documents."
I'd argue that there is no reason to use MongoDB because there are no use-cases other more mature databases won't be equally or better suited for. MongoDB is horrid, you won't know all its deficiencies when you get started with it, but over time you will come to despise it, it is really far away from being a mature database and I would advice anyone against using it for any task, and I'm not the only one who was burned using it and who adopted this attitude towards it.