> I watched with dread how the MongoDB fiasco played out a decade ago.
Could you elaborate on this? MongoDB as a company is worth $30B, so it looks like they did at least some things right.
Could you elaborate on this? MongoDB as a company is worth $30B, so it looks like they did at least some things right.
It also works well for early stage Consumer Internet startups that haven't yet achieved huge growth but care a lot about developer productivity while churning features at high velocity.
But it gets blamed for reliability issues suffered by highly successful Consumer Internet companies that have achieved scale and have DAU, MAU in > 10M and have lot more than 4TB of data in a single cluster.
But that's basically a good problem to have at that stage. Usually such a company would have many more problems – monolithic application with monolithic database with huge unmanageable schema and indexes gone wild etc. Usual solution at that stage would be some sort of rearchitecture towards Microservices with multiple specialized databases for different use-cases – usually cloud hosted managed databases with horizontal scalability dedicated for online user-path workloads and separate OLAP tech stack for offline ETL/analytics workloads.
There was a Slack competitor using MongoDB that was snappy and js hipster trendy that ultimately failed because of unreliable database IIRC.