[midom]

It was conversion from standard MongoDB to RocksDB based MongoDB, so replica count calculations don't really apply.

And yes, Mongo did not optimize for space efficiency, which is why there're efforts to optimize for space efficiency.

Just like there were efforts to optimize InnoDB for space efficiency, that stalled and got derailed by these hole punching ideas.

InnoDB did not become shit, it just stalled and did not progress in an area where lots of innovation is happening elsewhere (and there were possible avenues for optimization), so it may become less relevant.

As the post [title] said, InnoDB lost its advantage.

P.S. I wrote the original post.

[juliangregorian]

> It was conversion from standard MongoDB to RocksDB based MongoDB

Well that would have been relevant information to put in the article now wouldn't it?

[nemothekid]

Its probably caused by a misunderstanding. RocksDB is just a "library" - not really a database in the sense that you can connect to it and query it.

So to someone well understood in the space going from RocksDB to MongoDB without mentioning any sort of front end is meaningless. It would be like going from Postgres to Sqlite.

[juliangregorian]

What are you going on about? You can absolutely use RocksDB standalone, as you can Postgres and SQLite.