Hacker News Reader

> but I can't help but wonder if the string of negative MongoDB posts is coming from people who pick it b/c it's new, then realise pretty far in that this is nothing like a normal DB, and "having no schema" isn't really a reason to go with a tool as foundational as a data store.

My observation has been that a substantial number of people pick NoSQL stores because they don't really understand RDBMSs, and can't be bothered to learn.

I don't mean this as a dig at NoSQL in general - there's perfectly valid reasons to want some NoSQL features - but the hype train does attract a lot of people who just want the new hotness.

> It's probably pretty bad for a general purpose tool, but I'd be surprised if anyone serious actually considers it one.

I have talked to more than one 10gen marketing bro who insisted that MongoDB is appropriate for any and all use cases, transient to archival. It's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

I see the same thing with everyone using NODE.JS to serve traditional web applications with synchronous database access.

What about scalability? Trying to cluster and shard MySQL is a very difficult task, but with MongoDB it is trivial. No schema can be good, but scaling out easily is the big plus I see.

>but with MongoDB it is trivial

We did not have this experience when I worked at a large datamining company. It was a nightmare.

It would be interesting to hear what the difficulties were.

Mongo markets ease of sharding as an advantage, and if that is not the case at times, it limits the attractiveness of losing RDBMS features.

/dev/null is the most scalable system though, just fire up a node and it's there.

And your point is what ? MongoDB can replicate/shard without losing data.

It is just a setting you know that right ?