You don't have to support MongoDB, but you can support apps that were only written with Mongo as backend? That's awesome. I can't imagine it's production-ready yet but it's a great idea.
A simple wrapper in a language like Go or Rust is sufficient to surpass Mongo performance.
Personally, I have shifted database operations behind a GRPC service that uses Go language and PostgreSQL back-end. Allows me to customize the data store to suit the requirement.
PostgreSQL does not get enough love in this world.
I have a vague feeling that those who use Oracle are using it due to circumstance or corporate necessity.
Oracle had its tentacles everywhere in that company. I think even they wanted to stop using it but it was just integrated to too much.
Including horizontal sharding and vertical replication out of the box?
There are absolutely mongodb deployments out there that are at sufficient scale that they genuinely need those features in any storage backend, but I suspect the vast majority of them only need those features to work around mongo's mediocre straight line performance.
How close this comes to counting as "almost all" is of course highly arguable.
And lose all the data in a single failure?
I'm very confused why you might think that could "lose all the data" from a single one of those nodes failing.
Getting operations right is tricky no matter what you're doing/using, and you always have to learn your backend's idiosyncracies no matter which one you choose.
You have just described AWS DocumentDB, which is a Mongo compatible frontend using Postgres as the backend (AWS coyly refer to it as Aurora, though); the wire protocol compatibility is at the version 4.0 level, with some extras thrown in. Change event streams also works like a charm. We have been using it for a couple of years and have found DocumentDB stable, performant with the AWS support being very good. Support for complex compound indices is still missing as well as support for complex query projections is somewhat missing, but we have decided to change ways of how we use use documents instead, so it has not become a major impediment for us.
The main disadvantage, though, is cost, especially for smaller datasets where spinning up a separate DocumentDB cluster quickly turns into a money wasting excercise. Although, for our primary use cases, DocumentDB is still more than 3x cheaper than a comparable Atlas MongoDB PaaS.
People have tried and failed to get our software running on DocumentDB, whereas another developer got it running on CosmosDB with minimal changes upstream.
Not affiliated with MS in any way, just sharing what I've witnessed secondhand.
However, for simple to medium complexity projects, especially for brand new ones, DocumentDB is a viable and a more affordable alternative to Atlas MongoDB with a decent level compatibility.
Ah yes - https://github.com/stripe-archive/mosql
6 years ago
"MoSQL imports the contents of your MongoDB database cluster into a PostgreSQL instance, using an oplog tailer to keep the SQL mirror live up-to-date. This lets you run production services against a MongoDB database, and then run offline analytics or reporting using the full power of SQL."
But by all means replace your production system with MangoDB which is unsupported, significantly slower, has no built-in HA/clustering and written in Go which is a GC language.
I think it's disparaging to use the term resume driven development as though there is a large class of developers who are actively trying to harm projects by selecting inappropriate technologies.
I've worked with thousands of developers over the last 20+ years and never seen anyone do this.
And given how old MongoDB is not sure how it benefits anyone’s resume.
For some of these things, it may have been the right thing. For most of them, it was a chance to play with new technologies. I have seen multiple commercial projects where MongoDB was chosen by the developers with _no_ oversight by management (I have killed a couple of those projects, too, because MongoDB was always the wrong technology).
The original comment about the number of projects where MongoDB was chosen under résumé-driven-development is absolutely correct. That doesn’t make it _bad_; how _else_ is one supposed to get experience with new technologies than to try something new? (Sticking with Mongo after multiple data-loss incidents due to the “architecture” of Mongo, on the other hand…)
I think we use this term differently, perhaps? This term is not intended to be an attack, but rather just an acknowledgment of a common type of technical debt that results from people getting influenced by marketing teams and choosing tech based on how "trendy" it seems. Sometimes this might be done explicitly since they are intending to jump ship anyway... I've had conversations at the bar out of earshot of "the suits" where this exact topic was discussed! Most of the time it's not intentional or explicit, but just novice engineers directed by poor management to greenfield apps, and then falling for marketing claims and choosing based on how "trendy" the marketing claims it is vs real, observed needs. MongoDB is still getting taught at many bootcamps and coding curriculums as an "SQL, but better for beginners since you don't need that annoying schema thing!"
I don't think they're 'actively trying to harm projects', but the person you're responding to never implied that in any way.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
That can't possibly be true, or even close to true!
What is the state of the art in this area? I did a little PoC of moving data from Mongo to a new schema in Postgres with Hexo and DBT. It worked nicely, but it was only a PoC.
If it's not much data (eg ~100k or something), and you don't need any sort of gradual transition, then I'd do something really KISS like dump into a CSV or something and then re-import with whatever the new database management system has for importing files
at the time it was much faster than native mongo.