MongoDB isn't usually seen favorably but everyone must admit that it's an unlikely success story that deserves admiration. Think about it. Bringing a database to the market with a completely different paradigm, growing it to the enterprise-production-ready level, and creating a billion-dollar business around is no small deal. Yes, they did ride the NoSQL zeitgeist but they survived when others had no major success.<p>Undeniably, they did have their fuck-ups in the start, but I think they have done a good job fixing them.
Is it me..or does Mongo not seem as relevent and 'hip' as it once was... I mean I feel postgres is much more solid, and you can combine some of the aspects of document store via the json data types they added... of course I'm not really a DBA and don't have a lot of Mongo experience ... but personally I feel rdbms make more sense for growth/scaling..
I don't understand why everyone is so happy when IPOs go up and make it sound like a good event.<p>I see it as the founders needlessly missing out on 30% of money (in this case), which ends up going in the pockets of the Wall Street middle men that get first access to the stock offering.
Having gone through a few acquisitions where MongoDB was used, I would never recommend using it from a legal/compliance perspective. You either have to pay for a very expensive commercial license OR adhere to their AGPL license (which is very difficult).<p><a href="https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/</a>
<a href="https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/blob/master/GNU-AGPL-3.0.txt" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/blob/master/GNU-AGPL-3.0.tx...</a>
>Twenty-one percent of respondents told industry site StackOverflow that MongoDB was the most popular database, second only to versions from the dominant technology, SQL, which traces its roots back to legacy technology companies such as Microsoft, IBM and Oracle.<p>Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle are legacy technology companies? What kind of hipster journalist wrote this article?
->"MongoDB was the database that most software developers said they wanted to work with, according to StackOverflow's survey of 64,000 developers."<p>Does this just seem like it can't be true? Does anyone know where or why this would be the case?
Hmm, I work for a competing nosql company and the good news about the IPO is:
It should raise the visibility of all database products, not just Mongo.
The second part is that IPO for a database company is viable in this climate. Some of the early workers have been waiting for a long time for the IPO. I bet this spawns a new group of seed investors.
ach, the interminable hatred of mongodb is an anthropological artifact worthy of study.<p>It's the only truly working example of a horizontally scalable arbitrary document storage and retrieval system with indexing on any element. It is a much more general tool then an RDBS, and should never be used when an RDBS would do the job.<p>However, it's really good at collecting searchable, arbitrary schemaless data in real time. The newest versions do what they're supposed to do rather well, it's a tool like any other tool.<p>That said, the company is guilty of overhyping for sure, and I wouldn't invest in the stock on a rational basis.
Per crunchbase they raised their last funding round on a pre-money valuation of $1.6 billion. Since the market cap now is less than that valuation, why is the coverage saying this is a big success? It seems to me like this is a down round of some sort. Does anyone know if I am missing something here? Or does this type of down round not really affect the employees common stock?
After being introduced to the MongoDB stale read issue in 2015 [1] we abandoned MongoDB and never looked back. Anyone knows if this is resolved in the latest versions?<p>[1] <a href="https://aphyr.com/posts/322-jepsen-mongodb-stale-reads" rel="nofollow">https://aphyr.com/posts/322-jepsen-mongodb-stale-reads</a>
In real-live-production workloads I've had nothing but pain with MongoDB. They see more like a marketing and sales team piggybacking on a strange and immature database technology.
Interesting valuation. 8x revenue is a success for SaaS companies. They were initially priced at $20/share, which would imply ~9.5x revenue. At $32/share they're at ~16x revenue. Very steep.<p>They also fail the VC "rule of 40" where SaaS companies should have growth plus margins equal to 40%. (50% growth and negative 10% margins, or 10% growth and 30% margins) They seem to be at 50% growth, but minus 40% margins.<p>Somehow they pulled it off. Great for them!
As usual, the confusion and religious comments are numerous. There is no such thing as "nosql". There are different types of databases, with traditional relational being useful for 95% of scenarios (especially on increasingly fast servers with decent replication features) while the rest of the time something more specific is needed.<p>SQL is just an interface, obviously common to relational databases but can be applied to any datastore. Spark/Drill/Presto/Dremio/etc can give you SQL over any data, even just files in a folder somewhere, so let's clear up this notion between actual database technology and the access path.<p>Document stores are definitely useful. MongoDB is one of the better ones today although it had a rocky start. RethinkDB was an interesting experiment but never matured, RavenDB is a solid contender, Couchbase has proven itself, Riak might stick around, and there are dozens of others.<p>There is a place for everything and MongoDB is being used by plenty of companies to great extent. It might not always be the right choice but when it is, it works incredibly well. Good luck to the team, I'm glad to see the success in both the product and the company.
Maybe machines are too fast today. Back in the 70s, even departmental computers were slow. This might have forced better engineering choices onto the product designers.<p>The difference between and O( n log n) algorithm and an O(n^2) one could have made the difference between a decent product and a totally unusable one.<p>Nowadays, toy examples can seem to work fine even when the products have really terrible implementations.
Obligatory: MongoDB is web scale.[0]<p>[0]: <a href="https://youtu.be/b2F-DItXtZs" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/b2F-DItXtZs</a>
Whats MongoDB's business model !? Open source, and separate "enterprise" closed source version !? Are contributors OK with this or are most contributors in-house ? It seems Nginx et.al are also using this business model ... I'm thinking about starting my own open source business.
The irony of the situation is that MongoDB is now pretty good at horizontal scalability, probably because of all the big companies that were fooled into using it, which then had to fix it :-)<p>Seeing the comments in this thread, it's interesting how it gets compared with PostgreSQL. People are missing the point — NoSQL only happened because of horizontal scalability requirements, being the number one reason for why people want NoSQL.<p>Just because PostgreSQL can now store and interrogate JSON, that doesn't mean that PostgreSQL can scale horizontally. In fact PostgreSQL sucks at horizontal scaling, historically its replication story has been worse than MySQL actually.<p>And might not have big data, but you might want redundancy and scenarios with pretty tight SLAs are not uncommon at all.
<i>> "Most applications today run on a database technology that was introduced in the 1970s," Ittycheria said. "In the '70s, I was using a rotary phone to have a phone conversation. So people are looking for a modern, scalable and flexible platform."</i><p>It's like a weird version of the Turing test where you have to decide whether someone's speaking seriously or in jest when they talk about NoSQL.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs</a>
Does anyone use Mongo anymore?<p>Edit: Honest to god question. I was surprised when I saw the headline, because I've never seen anyone use mongo in production, and never ran into any articles talking about using mongo.
This article is still relevant:
<a href="http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2013/11/11/why-you-should-never-use-mongodb/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2013/11/11/why-you-should-never...</a><p>The main point is: most of your data is most likely relational and not document based. Use the DB that fits your data model, and not the data model that fits your DB.
Who would have though given that at some point this "Don't use MongoDB" seemed to have taken over HN:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3202081</a>
So instructions on making a successful company in 2017:<p>1. Spot a non-trivial expense type applicable to most Fortune 500 companies.<p>2. Make a startup offering the same thing under the cost.<p>3. Use your network to get sales people that personally know exec-level people from Fortune 500 and will pitch the product to them.<p>4. Get them to sign up. Of course they'll do, you're offering it under cost at the investors' expense.<p>5. Show impressive revenue and customer base growth and forget the word "profitability".<p>6. Make an IPO and cash in before the public realizes that your might have been selling dollars for ninety cents.<p>Who's left holding the bag? Average Joe, who's pension fund ended up investing in a promising technology company showing exemplary revenue growth over an extended time period...