[pritambaral]

MongoDB Inc. is still in the business of lying to its users through its teeth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23499658

And that's just a publicly available example. I have a client who paid for a MongoDB Inc. to send an "expert" down to assess the viability of a project, who flat out said the project can't be done and left it there; a week later the official MongoDB Inc. report says "We can definitely get it done. Why don't you move to our managed MongoDB Atlas service? That'll be $10K." For the record, my professional assessment was also that it'd be impossible to do it on a data model like Mongo's.

----

> Of course, there are those databases that are “perfect” from the start and never made any mistakes but is anyone talking about them today? Even Postgres gets it wrong sometimes.

1. The snark isn't helping your cause.

2. Then there are databases that claim to be "perfect" from the start, having always put up a facade without every admitting any of their own flaws. Like MongoDB.

The thing MongoDB does best — though not something a DBMS can be judged by — is marketing. Not just the marketing they push themselves — "MongoDB is web scale!", "90% of RDBMS use can be replaced by MongoDB!" — but also the marketing it can get its fans to push.

[fiedzia]

I think the core issue here is not the quality of marketing , but simply the fact that it exists. People need some database, and nobody is spending money on advertising Postgres, so they don't know anything about it.

Also Mongo wins by a large margin on "how little you need to know to get started" with any relational db.