[foobarian]

From top of linked article:

>>> I have to admit raising an eyebrow when I saw that web page. In that report, MongoDB lost data and violated causal by default. Somehow that became "among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today"! <<<

It's not wrong, just misleading. Seems overblown given that most practitioners know how to read this kind of marketing speak.

[takeda]

> It's not wrong, just misleading. Seems overblown given that most practitioners know how to read this kind of marketing speak.

So basically whatever MongoDB was doing 10 years ago, they are continuing to do there. They did not change at all, yesterday or two days ago there were few people defending mongo that indeed in early years mongo want the greatest, but it is now and people should just stop being hang up in the past.

The reason why people lost their trust with mongo wasn't technical, it was this.

[lostcolony]

I appreciate your optimism in thinking that most (all?) people reaching for distributed systems actually know enough in the space to evaluate such claims.

[takeda]

Agree, and the "Mongo and Jepsen" page isn't targeting distributed systems experts, most of them know to stay away, because even if there are things that mongo does right, other systems do it better.

[Carpetsmoker]

What other systems would you recommend?

[takeda]

I don't consider myself an expert in that area. Just someone who learned a lot from Kyle's articles.

Based on this, my understanding is: most of the time you want a relational database. If a relational database becomes a bottleneck for certain data, and you don't want to do typical scaling solutions for relational data, then you need to know what you'll trade for the higher performance. Based on what you trade, you then decide what kind of data store you will use.

[wolco]

What do you want to do?

[kvz]

FoundationDB

[kreetx]

Isn't that too low-level?