zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. inferi+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-04-27 05:24:42
Mongo was so comically bad. I remember trying to sort through a slow query and thought: ah ha! I'll just add an index. Unfortunately on that version of Mongo, creating an index would occasionally just crash the server process.

I think Mongo became popular because it's ad tech and those guys knew how to be buzzword compliant. JSON-esque documents are one thing, but Mongo is Javascript to the core. All of a sudden your JS devs don't have to learn SQL they can just shit out some queries in javascript. Of course that came with some pretty severe drawbacks.

replies(2): >>The_Co+Ej >>orthox+Ij
2. The_Co+Ej[view] [source] 2023-04-27 08:18:19
>>inferi+(OP)
As I remember, MongoDB got popular before node.js, so there wasn't really a lot of backend JavaScript developers out there to make a difference.

We first used Mongo ~11 years ago with Java. For us the benefit was that we could dump unstructured data into it quickly, but still run queries / aggregations on it later.

3. orthox+Ij[view] [source] 2023-04-27 08:19:07
>>inferi+(OP)
My favourite story about MongoDB is that it was so bad and popular at the same time that when a competitor developed a wire-compatible database that was miles better they simply bought it and released it as the next version of MongoDB.
replies(1): >>pier25+951
◧◩
4. pier25+951[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-04-27 13:28:48
>>orthox+Ij
which db was that?
replies(1): >>orthox+Q61
◧◩◪
5. orthox+Q61[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-04-27 13:36:17
>>pier25+951
I think I meant WiredTiger.
replies(1): >>aries1+hI4
◧◩◪◨
6. aries1+hI4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-04-28 14:35:31
>>orthox+Q61
This is true. And now MongoDB is miles better.
[go to top]