[PeterCorless]

MongoDB is not a drop-in replacement for a CockroachDB.

It's not SQL.

While MongoDB has come a long way in terms of ACID compliance, etc., you still would need to map everything you've done to MongoDB.

That's more work than forking code you're familiar with that already is working.

[redwood]

That makes sense it's more that from first principles when exploring the options it looked like and I see below based on the public page, it wasn't even contemplated.. instead various key value stores without transactionality, and with eventual consistency and limited secondary indexing capabilities were looked at that are not widely used.

I guess my deeper point is there's sort of the illusion of a comprehensive analysis in the post when actually engines that haven't been widely used in 5-10 years were analyzed when more widely deployed engines weren't even analyzd that's what was odd

[PeterCorless]

RFD 53 addressed why they avoided NoSQL in general:

"NoSQL systems (e.g., Cassandra, Riak). The challenges of building relational, transactional applications atop these systems is well known. These systems also generally predate the modern emphasis on hands-off operation, which is critical for supporting a system that we will not be operating directly."

https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0053#rfd48

[redwood]

My point is to conflate the entire non-relational category into this bucket when one of the two items referenced peaked >10 years ago and the other isn't generally strongly consistent at write time, transactional, or with strongly consistent secondary indexes, is a limited and misleading POV https://db-engines.com/en/ranking