MongoDB 1.8 (stable) released

Could someone with Mongo experience help me gut-check this?<p>I want my data store to be durable and unsurprising -- barring a hardware failure or such, if I submit data it should either tell me that it failed to commit or it should be stored durably and without surprises (e.g., it should not truncate a long string to fit).<p>I've read some of the Mongo docco, and it's pretty exciting, but the lack of ACID -- primarily the Durability -- has kept me from really using it.<p>With a WAL journal, it sounds like maybe the durability issue is fixed. Is it? Could I use Mongo with relatively out-of-the-box settings plus --journal and count on a level of durability equivalent to a traditional RDBMS?

Can't wait until they start implementing filtered indexes ( <a href="http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-785" rel="nofollow">http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-785</a> ). Sparse indexes are a step in the right direction, but filtered ones would be just a bit cooler :)<p>"New map/reduce options for incremental updates" would also be really cool if they had a way to do something like couchDBs incremental views. This would require keeping track of changes or a "trigger" functionality that runs the m/r task after every x inserts

Starting to get excited once again about MongoDB. I was kind of down about it after having some issues with real world implementations. Considering journaling is something I would never have thought would have made it in, I wonder if they will come around on the memory mapped I/O like everyone else eventually does.<p>EDIT: Also... does the group commit mean that ALL write transactions will be un-acknowledged to the client until the group commit finishes?

MongoDB is not something I have a good handle on yet. What's its sweet spot? Where should I consider using it instead of Postgres?

This is exciting: db.users.mapReduce(map, reduce, {out: { inline : 1}});<p>This is Not exciting:<p>"Note that this option is possible only when the result set fits within the 16MB limit of a single document."

Warning for those, who want to use MongoDB on FreeBSD: there is a known, unfixed bug, which locks database a lot:<p><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/mongodb-user/browse_thread/thread/95f9386cd57003e4" rel="nofollow">http://groups.google.com/group/mongodb-user/browse_thread/th...</a><p><a href="http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-663" rel="nofollow">http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-663</a>

I was really hoping for full-text search support, but I understand the team is busy :/

As a newb to non-relational databases, but planning on learning one soon, what is the advantage of MongoDB vs Redis? I'm planning to use ruby with either, but was interested if there was a reason to pick one over the other.

Wow. I knew about the durability changes but I had no idea that sparse and covered indexes where coming. These three changes where the biggest drawbacks to mongo for me.

yay "Tab completion in the shell" and "B-tree index self-compaction" are great. So is --journal.

The clustrix guy criticized mongodb that it locks the whole database quite often. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

But is it web scale?