What makes mongo mongo is its distibruted nature, without it you could just store json(b) in an RDBMS.
Since when? Mongo was popular because it gave the false perception it was insanely fast until people found out it was only fast if you didn't care about your data, and the moment you ensure write happened it ended up being slower than an RDB....
This was typical crap you had to say to pass fang style interview "oh of course I'd use mongo because this use case doesn't have relations and because it's easy to scale", while you know postgres will give you way less problems and allow you to make charts and analytics in 30m when finance comes around.
I made the mistake of picking mongo for my own startup, because of propaganda coming from interviewing materials and I regretted it for the entire duration of the company.
Distributing PostgreSQL still requires proprietary extensions.
With the most popular being Citus which is owned by Microsoft and so questions should definitely remain about how long they support that instead of pushing users to Azure.
People like to bash MongoDB but at least they have a built-in, supported and usable HA/Clustering solution. It's ridiculous to not have this in 2024.
Current preference: 1. HA MongoDB 2. HA MariaDB (Galera) or MySQL Cluster 3. Postgres Rube Goldberg Machine HA with Patroni 4. No HA Postgres
I actually did this for as small HR application and it worked incredible well.jsonb gin indexes are pretty nice once you get the hang of the syntax.
And then, you also have all the features of Postgres as a freebie.
Big fan of jsonb columns.
One could optimise it more for a distributed sql by implementing key partition awareness and connecting directly to a tserver storing the data one’s after.
> Scylla, Yuga, Cockroach, TiDB etc.
You have experience "distributing" all these DBs? That's impressive.
Say what you want about the rest of mongo. This is an area where it actually shines.
Would have to test, but the library for this post may well work with CockroachDB if you wanted to go that route instead of straight PostgreSQL. I think conceptually the sharding + replication of other DBs like Scylla/Cassandra and CockroachDB is a bit more elegant and easier to reason with. Just my own take though.
In principle, a cluster of something like Mongo can scale much further than Postgres. In practice, Mongo is full of issues even before you replicate it, and you are better with something that abstracts a set if incoherent Postgres (or sqlite) instances.
I doubt it ever will. The point of distributing a data store is latency and availability, both of which would go down the drain with distributed strong consistency
Ultimately anyone doing things at that scale is going to run a small priesthood doing custom things to keep the persistence payer humming, regardless of what the underlying database is. I recall a project abstracting over the Mongo API, as to allow for swapping the storage layer if they ever needed to
Mongo does. (In fact, replication is about the only thing Mongo does correctly.)
If you actually want a replicated log then Mongo is a very good choice. Postgres isn't.
Welllllllll I think that's moving the goalposts. Being distributed might be a thing _now_ but I still remember when it was marketed as the thing to have if you wanted to store unstructured documents.
Now that Postgres also does that, you're marketing Mongo as having a different unique feature. Moving the goalposts.
Yes, I'm still bitter because I was one of those tricked into it.