[pkolaczk]

> What you are saying is that I need to change MongoDB in order to make it safe. Relational database are safe out of the box, no change necessary

Relational databases are safe out of the box, but it is not their unique capability. Most other NoSQL stores are safe out of the box, too, being at the same time faster and easier to scale than RDBMSes. It is only Mongo which did it differently, so please don't extrapolate that bad experience to all NoSQL.

[yummyfajitas]

For the use case described here scalability is irrelevant. The OP is processing hundreds of real world shipment updates per day. I'm pretty sure that Postgres can handle that on a $10-20 digital ocean droplet.

A back of the envelope calculation. Assume each shipment brings in $0.10 in profit to his company. Suppose at some point he needs to scale up to 100,000 shipments/day. His revenue is now $10,000/day.

A "Performance One" Rackspace server costs $1250/month and Rackspace isn't known for being cheap. A Hetzner box with all the things added (12TB HD, 2.4TB SSD HD, 384GB RAM) costs 831 Euro/Month.

[pkolaczk]

Scalability is irrelevant, but availability/reliability is. I simply don't get why you insist on comparing MongoDB to RDBMS while there are better NoSQL alternatives, which would be the right tool for the job.

[Ensorceled]

He didn't. Also, the Most part of "Most other NoSQL stores are safe out of the box" doesn't really give you the right to be snarky about the supposed implication.