|
As mkohlmyr mentions, it is unfortunate that MongoDB is offhandedly dismissed, however by the second paragraph of the linked article you have to appreciate how such hostility comes about. But what is it that SQL databases could not solve which lead to the evolution of NoSql databases...{some "big data" changes to the world}...Which means processing huge amount of data. Which SQL databases were never designed for. Firstly, specialized data storage and retrieval, including unstructured or document oriented, existed long before SQL did. Your filesystem is just such a system. Everything old is new again. And secondly, a citation is required for the SQL databases "were never designed for" huge amounts of data claim. To start with, a definition of huge is necessary to make such a claim. 1GB? 1TB? 100TB? There are SQL solutions that work with all of those with ease. Many of the largest databases on the planet are humming away on SQL systems right now. SQL is abstract from the underlying platform, so if you have a cluster of 100 machines each in front of 1000 storage arrays each in front of 100 SSDs, it doesn't suddenly become "NoSQL". SQL databases are generalized solutions. They generally do not solve specific, individual problems as well as precisely engineered solutions, which is why giant companies like Google, with extremely precise needs (e.g. index the web) have solutions that do a much better job for their purposes. Does that apply to your needs at all, though? Are you looking at your specific requirements, engineering precise storage and retrieval that is optimal? Probably not. Saying "MongoDB is under the umbrella of NoSQL, and NoSQL also kind of encompasses highly specialized solutions from industry leaders, so it will work for my startups contacts databases" is very, very poor, misleading reasoning. But we see it all of the time on HN in regards to solutions like mongodb. Which again is how you get responses that might seem hostile. |