MongoDB’s new query engine(laplab.me)
laplab.me
MongoDB’s new query engine
https://laplab.me/posts/inside-new-query-engine-of-mongodb/
131 コメント
The problem is when you grow. They can be really tough to work with on pricing. Also, their licensing does not allow servers past a certain size. Can you imagine Oracle telling the CIA they can't use servers with more than 256gb of ram? Just silly.
I'm not sure what experience you have, but I've run both their Enterprise licensed database on prem as well as migrated to Atlas and there have never been any licensing issues preventing vertical scaling of databases. One of our clusters on Atlas right now has machines larger than 256GB of RAM -- you're more limited by what your cloud vendor has available than Atlas.
Actually yeah for Atlas, I guess they automatically bill you as if it was 2-3x Enterprise Advanced licenses so there's no discussion. I thought it was the same as Enterprise Advanced but I guess not. With EA each unit above 256gb is billed as an additional license. See [0] [1] [2].
[0] https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/for-mongodb-enter...
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/for-mongodb-enter...
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-sizing-guide-sepp-ren...
[0] https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/for-mongodb-enter...
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/for-mongodb-enter...
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-sizing-guide-sepp-ren...
[deleted]
Yeah atlas with federated queries and what not makes thinking about the entirety of an application storage layer a breeze. And gpt is even better at generating mongo queries than it is at sql, which is a nice unexpected facilitation in day to day usage.
No support for collation is an enormous dealbreaker. It means you can't have case-insensitive searches or keys (e.g. [email protected] is treated differently than [email protected]). You also can't rename databases.
The query syntax is also a massive pain IMHO. Especially when you get into nesting expressions. E.g. I can never remember if it's `{$id: $regex{'/pattern/'}}` or `{$id: ${regex: '/pattern/'}}` or `{$id: $regex{ pattern: '/pattern/' }}` or something totally different.
SQL is still superior.
The query syntax is also a massive pain IMHO. Especially when you get into nesting expressions. E.g. I can never remember if it's `{$id: $regex{'/pattern/'}}` or `{$id: ${regex: '/pattern/'}}` or `{$id: $regex{ pattern: '/pattern/' }}` or something totally different.
SQL is still superior.
>It means you can't have case-insensitive searches or keys (e.g. [email protected] is treated differently than [email protected]). You also can't rename databases.
Can't you just query for a lowercase version of the input and sanitize data going into the DB so it's only lowercase? I'm not a mongo user but that doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me
Can't you just query for a lowercase version of the input and sanitize data going into the DB so it's only lowercase? I'm not a mongo user but that doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me
Yes, you'd do something just like that. Document databases aren't relational databases. People need to think about solving the same problems a little differently. A lot of folks used to relational databases push for some perfect third normal form like disk space is still the major constraint in massive databases. For document databases, you design them based on how they are going to be used. Even if that means duplication of data like storing the lowercase version of something for indexing or rolling up your data into summary collections instead of performing those sorts of queries or collection aggregations on-demand.
Relational DBs often involve duplication for these kinds of use cases. Simple case-insensitive match can be handled with a custom index that's automatically derived from the col data, but there are more advanced cases where you need manually denormalized tables. Or sometimes it makes sense for performance reasons, but you only do this after you notice the normalized way being too slow.
Sure. It's not like all folks who lean on relational databases are third normal form zealots. But third normal form zealots exclusively come from a relational database background. Which makes sense.
They probably do, but idk, I've never considered 3NF or the preferred type of DBMS as part of someone's personal identity. These are just tools.
I’ve been using DynamoDB for the first time recently and this is some good perspective to bring to it!
I love Postgres and use it for different projects but for inboxes.com which has a very high insert rate coupled with auto delete by time stamp Mongo up until now has been very kind to me. We sometimes have 1000 incoming emails per second and high usage of our API and it just works.
Did you actually migrate from PostgreSQL to MongoDB for inboxes.com prod?
This is great and all but I'm curious on the performance improvements. I'm surprised there are no graphs or charts when show improvement in latency, CPU usage, disk reads, etc
Heh, I missed that there's a new query engine.
From [0] it looks like it was available from 5.1, also interesting is that you can't choose which engine to use, so I suppose it only works on subsets or queries that meet certain conditions.
This isn't the first time I hear something to the effect of "LLVM JIT is great, but it introduces a lot of query latency". I wonder if there are other JIT engines more suitable for compiling potentially small/simple queries.
[0] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/v7.0/reference/sbe/#std-label-s...
From [0] it looks like it was available from 5.1, also interesting is that you can't choose which engine to use, so I suppose it only works on subsets or queries that meet certain conditions.
This isn't the first time I hear something to the effect of "LLVM JIT is great, but it introduces a lot of query latency". I wonder if there are other JIT engines more suitable for compiling potentially small/simple queries.
[0] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/v7.0/reference/sbe/#std-label-s...
LLVM has many advantages for JIT but it does not prioritize very low latency, choosing to optimize other properties instead. Consequently, LLVM tends to be more popular for systems targeted at analytical workloads where queries commonly have intrinsically high overhead latency. The latency isn't terrible but it is noticeable if you are running a low-latency "fast-twitch" workload.
There are other specialized JIT compilers that are essentially purpose-built to provide very low latency; for systems like MongoDB which are rarely used for serious analytical processing, you'd probably want to use one of these instead.
There are other specialized JIT compilers that are essentially purpose-built to provide very low latency; for systems like MongoDB which are rarely used for serious analytical processing, you'd probably want to use one of these instead.
re LLVM: Yes, Cranelift was designed to address these issues
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/crane...
https://blog.benj.me/2021/02/17/cranelift-codegen-primer
https://jason-williams.co.uk/posts/a-possible-new-backend-fo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130528 30% faster rust build time
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/crane...
https://blog.benj.me/2021/02/17/cranelift-codegen-primer
https://jason-williams.co.uk/posts/a-possible-new-backend-fo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130528 30% faster rust build time
can it sort by id?
I'm sure it can[1], do you mean can you get documents in insertion order? The default _id is a random right-leaning identifier[2], so sorting by it would only get you an approximate insertion order (except in a deployment with a single server). However as the linked documentation demonstrates you could supply a strictly incrementing ID, if your architecture abides.
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/operator/aggre...
[2] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/method/ObjectI...
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/operator/aggre...
[2] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/method/ObjectI...
no, that means you can sort on a max of 32 fields per sort request, like fieldOne, fieldTwo, fieldThree...
There's no limit on number of sortable documents. Use an index to sort and it'll also be fast and use no extra memory. If you want to do an in memory sort there are memory limits, but you can also tell it to overflow to disk.
There's no limit on number of sortable documents. Use an index to sort and it'll also be fast and use no extra memory. If you want to do an in memory sort there are memory limits, but you can also tell it to overflow to disk.
Oh gotcha, thanks that makes sense. 32 did seem like a bizarrely low limit for how many documents you can sort, but as a number of fields it's plenty.
I've removed that part of my comment. Appreciate the correction.
I've removed that part of my comment. Appreciate the correction.
Serious question: Why use MongoDB when Postgres supports indexed dynamic json?
MongoDB:
a) has a proven, supported, easy-to-use horizontal scaling solution. PostgreSQL doesn't.
b) is ridiculously faster than PostgreSQL at per-tuple document updates.
c) has clients which are tailored for operations and data structures around documents.
d) is easier to install, configure and manage.
a) has a proven, supported, easy-to-use horizontal scaling solution. PostgreSQL doesn't.
b) is ridiculously faster than PostgreSQL at per-tuple document updates.
c) has clients which are tailored for operations and data structures around documents.
d) is easier to install, configure and manage.
I thought all those points died along with the hype ("MongoDB is web scale"), as all were wrong.
Those were the marketing points people mentioned in their "honeymoon phase" posts. Then after using it in production, actual benchmarks and comparisons coming in, came the regret and moving on posts. In fact, most of those mentioned moving from Mongo to Postgres, and there was a full blow "yeah, NoSQL was a dumb idea for 99% of use cases, and Mongo even more so" discussion.
In the end MongoDB was the butt of a joke, there were whole memes about it.
So this comment is like a trip down memory lane, or into an alternate universe, where it's like 2012 and these things never happened.
Those were the marketing points people mentioned in their "honeymoon phase" posts. Then after using it in production, actual benchmarks and comparisons coming in, came the regret and moving on posts. In fact, most of those mentioned moving from Mongo to Postgres, and there was a full blow "yeah, NoSQL was a dumb idea for 99% of use cases, and Mongo even more so" discussion.
In the end MongoDB was the butt of a joke, there were whole memes about it.
So this comment is like a trip down memory lane, or into an alternate universe, where it's like 2012 and these things never happened.
At least in my experience it is all still the case today.
If you are dealing exclusively with documents I find MongoDB to be faster, better and easier to use. If my data model is hybrid or purely relational then I would use PostgreSQL.
After all these years I am still waiting for an horizontal scalability solution for PostgreSQL that is up to the level of a modern database. It's 2023 and for many of us in enterprise environments it's a mandatory NFR.
But it seems like you're not interested in a having an actual technical discussion.
If you are dealing exclusively with documents I find MongoDB to be faster, better and easier to use. If my data model is hybrid or purely relational then I would use PostgreSQL.
After all these years I am still waiting for an horizontal scalability solution for PostgreSQL that is up to the level of a modern database. It's 2023 and for many of us in enterprise environments it's a mandatory NFR.
But it seems like you're not interested in a having an actual technical discussion.
did you try citus?
https://www.citusdata.com/product/community
[deleted]
It has serious limitations and needs a lot of elbow grease to run at scale. With some of the alternatives (for example MongoDB) you basically just add a few more machines and you are good.
In my opinion Citus is still only a hack which is only useful if for some reason you can't move away from Postgres but you have reached the limit of what you can get out of a single machine.
In my opinion Citus is still only a hack which is only useful if for some reason you can't move away from Postgres but you have reached the limit of what you can get out of a single machine.
Well, your data model could become relational if you normalize it.
There are many examples but let's take one: star schemas.
I can implement that in MongoDB such that a query can be done in O(1) whereas implementing this in a relational database requires n joins which in turn requires n foreign key indexes and n row fetches. In many cases this approaches O(n). I have personally seen improvements of 10-100x for this use case when n is large.
Also there is a reason that the standard now in enterprise companies are data lakes and not EDWs. Because the cost and effort to model all of your data is prohibitive especially when 99% of the data ends up never being queried.
I can implement that in MongoDB such that a query can be done in O(1) whereas implementing this in a relational database requires n joins which in turn requires n foreign key indexes and n row fetches. In many cases this approaches O(n). I have personally seen improvements of 10-100x for this use case when n is large.
Also there is a reason that the standard now in enterprise companies are data lakes and not EDWs. Because the cost and effort to model all of your data is prohibitive especially when 99% of the data ends up never being queried.
Normalizing your data is not always possible or desirable.
>But it seems like you're not interested in a having an actual technical discussion.
You mean like the "technical" bullet points that could just as well be marketing copy?
You mean like the "technical" bullet points that could just as well be marketing copy?
If you base your technology decisions on what the current memes are on /r/technology, you're going to have that impression, sure. But in reality, no, there wasn't a vote held in 2016 where we all agreed NoSQL was a mistake and we should go back to RDBMSs.
The horizontal replication story in Mongo is just a different game. And because it's so reliable, that ends up being how you solve not just availability and scalability but also engine upgrades and config changes.
I migrated a bunch of production transactional databases on Mongo Atlas from a GCP cluster to an AWS cluster, with zero read/write downtime, by just walking through simple cluster reconfiguration steps. Add some nodes in AWS... move the write master... remove some nodes from GCP. It was stress free and easy.
The same trick with replication on Postgres was a nail biter every time we did it.
The horizontal replication story in Mongo is just a different game. And because it's so reliable, that ends up being how you solve not just availability and scalability but also engine upgrades and config changes.
I migrated a bunch of production transactional databases on Mongo Atlas from a GCP cluster to an AWS cluster, with zero read/write downtime, by just walking through simple cluster reconfiguration steps. Add some nodes in AWS... move the write master... remove some nodes from GCP. It was stress free and easy.
The same trick with replication on Postgres was a nail biter every time we did it.
They used it at my first full time job out of university.
It was terrible.
It was not fast, a regular SQL db would have been much better, due to bugs in our code, the data in mongodb was not uniform, which led to failures in the code when the document didn't have the expected format.
Cherry on top is that they were mostly growing documents, which is a very slow operation, that would have been done very fast with a many-to-many table in SQL instead.
It was terrible.
It was not fast, a regular SQL db would have been much better, due to bugs in our code, the data in mongodb was not uniform, which led to failures in the code when the document didn't have the expected format.
Cherry on top is that they were mostly growing documents, which is a very slow operation, that would have been done very fast with a many-to-many table in SQL instead.
> due to bugs in our code, the data in mongodb was not uniform
It supports schemas though right? https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/core/schema-validation/
It supports schemas though right? https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/core/schema-validation/
[deleted]
If I'm not mistaken, that was added relatively late, in version 3.2, which was released in December 2015.
How is (a) wrong? Pg doesn't horizontally scale like Mongo does
Between plain old horizontal scaling via custom sharding, replicas, and extensions like Citus and Timescale that offer full horizontal scalability, Postgres is handling some of the biggest use cases in the world.
It's simply a fact that Postgres does not offer out of the box scaling like MongoDB.
Postgres does have things like Citus, or even wire-protocol compatible things like CockroachDB that do scale, but those are not Postgres.
It's the same situation with MySQL vs. Vitess.
Postgres does have things like Citus, or even wire-protocol compatible things like CockroachDB that do scale, but those are not Postgres.
It's the same situation with MySQL vs. Vitess.
> but those are not Postgres.
sure, citus is an extension of postgres and part of ecosystem.
sure, citus is an extension of postgres and part of ecosystem.
And it comes with a bunch of caveats. It's bolted-on horizontal scaling, vs MongoDB where that's the main feature. Yes I still prefer Postgres in general, but it's fair to point out that weakness of it.
Citus was acquired by Microsoft so there are doubts about its future longevity given that so many similar promises of ongoing support are rarely maintained. Timescale is optimised for time-series so not sure it's applicable.
Point still remains that PostgreSQL lacks a modern, built-in horizontal scalability solution.
Point still remains that PostgreSQL lacks a modern, built-in horizontal scalability solution.
>given that so many similar promises of ongoing support are rarely maintained
Microsoft on the other hand is among the best in keeping such promises.
If Google had bought it, sure...
Microsoft on the other hand is among the best in keeping such promises.
If Google had bought it, sure...
Well let's see how long Google's Spanner lasts. It's designed to support huge-scale systems, and personally I'd be terrified locking a huge system into that.
Cockroachdb is a common solution here.
Okey, maybe I do not understand something but how is https://neon.tech not auto-scaling? Or the more expensive option at AWS Aurora?
> not auto-scaling?
The writes aren't. There's no sharding for example. You can ever only have 1 primary writer.
The writes aren't. There's no sharding for example. You can ever only have 1 primary writer.
Fair, but this is getting fixed. Postgres 16 (which was just released) adds an origin tag to logical replication, so that you can know whether or not to pass on a change (and avoid having an infinite loop where a change is replicated back and forth). That's the first step to having multiple mains. I think in theory, if you had deep Postgres knowledge, you could set up a high touch, bespoke multi-main deployment today.
I expect the replication story with Postgres will get much better over the next few years.
I expect the replication story with Postgres will get much better over the next few years.
This is not Postgres. It's a managed instance, but isn't built in.
> Pg doesn't horizontally scale like Mongo does
At what cost though? Does 1 Pg server = 1 Mongo server for the same specs or do you need a lot more Mongo servers?
At what cost though? Does 1 Pg server = 1 Mongo server for the same specs or do you need a lot more Mongo servers?
It all depends on your data structure and problem space. It was silly to dismiss RDBMSes as obsolete 10 years ago, and it's silly to dismiss document databases or other NoSQL databases today. There are plenty of use cases for which Mongo is far superior to Postgres. A wise engineer chooses the best tool for the job.
You're wrong. MongoDB is web scale.
/s
/s
It's not 2012 anymore ;)
But is it PlanetScale?
PostgreSQL will be horizontaly scaling if you can avoid joins and index range locks. But the thing is you don't want to, or why do you need SQL database then. I found MongoDB good for cases when you need a lot of upserts, your data model is looks like document and you don't need joins. Like you store events data for further processing or collect stats or counters with tags/indexes.
> MongoDB:
does mongodb support ACID transactions? I think this is one of the key question in making decision.
does mongodb support ACID transactions? I think this is one of the key question in making decision.
All operations related to a single document are ACID. MongoDB supports multi-document transactions, but with higher performance cost. https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/core/transactions/
Your doc doesn't state ACID support, but only atomicity (first A in ACID).
also jepsen report says that it is mongo marketing assessment, and they are not really acid:
MongoDB’s claim of “full ACID transactions” which “maintain the same data integrity guarantees you are used to in traditional databases” could be misleading. We recommend that users who are accustomed to serializable behavior evaluate critical transactions carefully, to identify whether running at snapshot isolation could violate application-level constraints. MongoDB may wish to revise their marketing language to use “snapshot isolated” instead of “ACID”. https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
MongoDB’s claim of “full ACID transactions” which “maintain the same data integrity guarantees you are used to in traditional databases” could be misleading. We recommend that users who are accustomed to serializable behavior evaluate critical transactions carefully, to identify whether running at snapshot isolation could violate application-level constraints. MongoDB may wish to revise their marketing language to use “snapshot isolated” instead of “ACID”. https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
Thanks. Just what I was looking for.
Why is there no conversation on the topic at hand and instead conversation on why use MongoDB.
This authors post has nothing to do with pro/cons of mongodb, and is entirely around a new query engine and computer science. And instead we've devolved into a discussion on the pros and cons of PostgreSQL vs MongoDB.
This authors post has nothing to do with pro/cons of mongodb, and is entirely around a new query engine and computer science. And instead we've devolved into a discussion on the pros and cons of PostgreSQL vs MongoDB.
It's completely understandable. This is a significant and interesting upgrade to MongoDB that naturally gets people interested in a, "Hmmm… maybe I should take another look at MongoDB" way. Before wasting time, it seems sensible to use this forum full of experts to ask whether it would be worthwhile, and what the advantages or disadvantages would be. I didn't sense any negativity in the question, and it was the exact question I had in my head too. After skim-reading the article I went straight to scrolling down the comments to look for this exact question.
Same as it ever was. Someone posts a new JS framework, and the top 50 comments are about how bad JS is, and why don't we do RUST with WASM instead? Someone posts about a new Go release, and the top 50 comments are about how terrible Go is, and why don't we use a real language instead? Mongo... same thing.
I get it. People don't like certain tools. But it would be nice for the rest of us to be able to actually discuss the topic at hand without all of the tangential critical noise.
I get it. People don't like certain tools. But it would be nice for the rest of us to be able to actually discuss the topic at hand without all of the tangential critical noise.
The original question was fine, asking what's the reason to use MongoDB. Like, it got a new query engine, please convince me to try using it / how does the new engine compare to Postgres.
The sub-questions about FOSS and font choice are annoying, in fact I removed my replies on them because I didn't want to feed the problem.
The sub-questions about FOSS and font choice are annoying, in fact I removed my replies on them because I didn't want to feed the problem.
Because the developer productivity is great because the language drivers that interface with the database are seamless with your code. MongoDB lets you burn down a backlog better than any other database. It’s not right for every problem but when it is right it’s the best tool because the language drivers are so good. That’s their secret sauce.
Just to add to sibling comments, one killer feature for me is ChangeStreams[1]. It's miles ahead of what Postgres[2] offers, and it enables really interesting use cases. Some of my services built around ChangeStreams end up not doing a single query to the DB. Data is right there in the program memory, indexed how I need it to be, and program is immediately reactive to any changes in the DB.
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/changeStreams/
[2] https://blog.sequin.io/all-the-ways-to-capture-changes-in-po...
[1] https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/changeStreams/
[2] https://blog.sequin.io/all-the-ways-to-capture-changes-in-po...
I remember adding changestreams a few years back to my project, they were amazing .
I'm a postgres fan but I have to admit the JSON syntax is not the best and not well supported by all the tooling around this database. Doesn't mean it's bad but the DX could be better.
Other than that, I have never seen a proper justification to use schema less db, good for prototyping and get started, not incredible as a long-term solution.
Other than that, I have never seen a proper justification to use schema less db, good for prototyping and get started, not incredible as a long-term solution.
Schema-less is a bit wrong term, since you always end up with one but, indeed, schema-on-read vs schema-on-write discussion for individual use cases is far from a settled thing, even though the zeitgeist is that schema-on-write won sometime in the 70s.
You say "prototyping", but I would generalize that to "faster evolving" in the long term. Of course, not without tradeoffs.
I personally have zero issues writing a custom marshaller when needed for any the schema-less document collections I have. Constraints your application has on the data are a superset of db schema anyways.
You say "prototyping", but I would generalize that to "faster evolving" in the long term. Of course, not without tradeoffs.
I personally have zero issues writing a custom marshaller when needed for any the schema-less document collections I have. Constraints your application has on the data are a superset of db schema anyways.
Serious counter-question: How do you run Postgres in a native and hands-off replicated failover setup? With MongoDB you create a three-node replica set and you're done. I've yet to see a simple guide for Postgres. But I might be wrong, so happy to hear how you would achieve the same with Postgres.
This isn't just a server property. It need to be implemented across the whole vertical, including client libraries and how queries are constructed in the application. With mongo it all is, and it's there out of the box.
Client libraries are made to do this failover and retry under the hood. Queries are more often made as upserts instead of assuming transactions, eg ObjectId rather than auto increment and so on. Even non upserting operations like $inc are safely retried if handled by queries and not application code.
It's magic to see it happen, with no extra code, the application just keeps running even when one server is down. Starting it up again and it reconciles with no hands-on.
I would love to see a postgres that does this, because relational data is often more useful than the document model.
Client libraries are made to do this failover and retry under the hood. Queries are more often made as upserts instead of assuming transactions, eg ObjectId rather than auto increment and so on. Even non upserting operations like $inc are safely retried if handled by queries and not application code.
It's magic to see it happen, with no extra code, the application just keeps running even when one server is down. Starting it up again and it reconciles with no hands-on.
I would love to see a postgres that does this, because relational data is often more useful than the document model.
I gave my answer a few years ago. The summary is that its query and update operations over documents are miles ahead of what PostgreSQL has to offer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23271085
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23271085
3 year… almost 4 years ago you commented about a few years ago. So not really relevant.
For the idiots downvoting.
2018 was version 11. Right when PostgreSQL JSONB support was beginning to get good.
For the idiots downvoting.
2018 was version 11. Right when PostgreSQL JSONB support was beginning to get good.
Why use a non-FOSS database at all?
My question exactly. No sense building a house on someone else's land. Too many projects I've worked on were shattered because of technology that stopped being offered or got too expensive to justify.
There is FerretDB. But they are not fully compatible to Mongo yet.
https://www.ferretdb.io/
https://www.ferretdb.io/
Because just about no one cares and I want to burn down a backlog quickly and often mongo enables that. Developer productivity is far more valuable that open source purity.
> Developer productivity is far more valuable that open source purity.
I mean, at least you get access to MongoDB source code, so that is something.
I remember working on a project that used Clusterpoint years ago and the problem was that it was basically an abandoned piece of software due to the company behind it no longer releasing new versions. It was running, yes, but getting data out of it and migrating to something else sure took work and was very annoying because a lot of functionality had been built around it.
So in regards to something so critical as databases and data storage solutions, I'd err on the side of picking things that are open source, or have compatible alternatives with permissive licenses.
If someone were to build their own business around MongoDB (say, offering it as a service) and then SSPL came along, they'd be done for, even if just because of getting caught up in things going on between the org and large cloud vendors or something. Same with how you have to be careful with AGPL, so something like MinIO might be a non-starter in some cases.
I mean, at least you get access to MongoDB source code, so that is something.
I remember working on a project that used Clusterpoint years ago and the problem was that it was basically an abandoned piece of software due to the company behind it no longer releasing new versions. It was running, yes, but getting data out of it and migrating to something else sure took work and was very annoying because a lot of functionality had been built around it.
So in regards to something so critical as databases and data storage solutions, I'd err on the side of picking things that are open source, or have compatible alternatives with permissive licenses.
If someone were to build their own business around MongoDB (say, offering it as a service) and then SSPL came along, they'd be done for, even if just because of getting caught up in things going on between the org and large cloud vendors or something. Same with how you have to be careful with AGPL, so something like MinIO might be a non-starter in some cases.
Yeah if your goal is to offer it as a service then you’re out of luck. But if you plan on building anything else then you’re fine.
Mongo is a thriving database so I’m not worried about it being abandon.
Mongo is a thriving database so I’m not worried about it being abandon.
> Mongo is a thriving database so I’m not worried about it being abandon.
With this, I can totally agree! And as long as it's not AGPL, you should be fine using it for most regular development stuff, even for closed source projects.
With this, I can totally agree! And as long as it's not AGPL, you should be fine using it for most regular development stuff, even for closed source projects.
> Developer productivity is far more valuable that open source purity.
that's until provider starts abusing power: increasing rates, close source completely, etc.
that's until provider starts abusing power: increasing rates, close source completely, etc.
Yeah sure I guess but that’s not a real problem, at least not now or in the near future. Good chance it won’t even be a project I need to budget for by then.
I’m really more interested in getting shit done today rather than worrying about 100000 possible future cases. This is how you succeed.
I’m really more interested in getting shit done today rather than worrying about 100000 possible future cases. This is how you succeed.
[deleted]
Isn't mongodb open source?
https://github.com/mongodb/mongo
Edit: ah it's source-available, not open source.
https://github.com/mongodb/mongo
Edit: ah it's source-available, not open source.
Also, but main point for MongoDB 10 years ago was the JSON. But now?
MongoDB is much easier to setup as a HA cluster
[deleted]
If you're only storing and querying JSON, then it's cheaper to run DynamoDB instead of RDS.
Does MongoDB still lose data?
Your comment is ambigous.
Since 5.0 the default write concern is majority, if that's what you were referring to.
Since 5.0 the default write concern is majority, if that's what you were referring to.
Providing some context would be nice
> Our most recent report on MongoDB 3.6.4 focused on causal consistency and linearizability in sharded collections. We found that sharded clusters appeared to offer linearizable reads, writes, and compare-and-set operations against single documents, so long as users ran with read concern linearizable and write concern majority. However, any weaker level of write concern resulted in the loss of committed writes. MongoDB’s default level of write concern was (and remains) acknowledgement by a single node, which means MongoDB may lose data by default. Although the write concern documentation does not make this clear, the rollback documentation states:
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
https://jepsen.io/analyses/mongodb-4.2.6
This was prior to the introduction of transactions years ago. The versions stated in your comment are past EOL and not offered in Atlas today. Not relevant to today's reality.
sure, but I'm providing the context for why they'd even ask.
Another case of bad defaults, seems to have changed since 5.0.
The backlash at the time was that some felt it wasn't just bad defaults but intentional benchmark juicing. Old news now, though.
Dear Geeks with interesting things to say on your blog:
Please, for sake of the people you want to hear your words. DO NOT USE A SANS SERIF MONOSPACED FONT FOR ANYTHING BUT CODE.
I get it. We stare at text (code) formatted in this kind of font all day long, and many of us find fonts that we truly enjoy. But, most of our monospace sans-serif fonts are designed to make sure individual characters aren't misread. We don't read prose the same way we read code. There is far more pattern recognition going on than actual parsing of individual letters, and monospaced fonts break that. We can debate the aesthetics of serifs but they actually do help provide context clues to the pattern recognition systems in our brain.
Convincing you all to start using serif fonts on prose is not a battle i'm likely to win, but maybe I can convince you to only use monospaced fonts for your terminal, and your code.
Please.
Please, for sake of the people you want to hear your words. DO NOT USE A SANS SERIF MONOSPACED FONT FOR ANYTHING BUT CODE.
I get it. We stare at text (code) formatted in this kind of font all day long, and many of us find fonts that we truly enjoy. But, most of our monospace sans-serif fonts are designed to make sure individual characters aren't misread. We don't read prose the same way we read code. There is far more pattern recognition going on than actual parsing of individual letters, and monospaced fonts break that. We can debate the aesthetics of serifs but they actually do help provide context clues to the pattern recognition systems in our brain.
Convincing you all to start using serif fonts on prose is not a battle i'm likely to win, but maybe I can convince you to only use monospaced fonts for your terminal, and your code.
Please.
You exaggerate the issue. Proportional fonts were a necessity when lead, ink and paper were expensive. In lead typesetting they are easy to do. This caused the success of newspaper fonts like Times New Roman.
Contemporary fonts have much less variance in the width of characters, except for a couple of outliers like the i. From there to a completely monospaced font is not as big a leap as you make it seem. For me, I'm fine with monospaced fonts for prose.
Contemporary fonts have much less variance in the width of characters, except for a couple of outliers like the i. From there to a completely monospaced font is not as big a leap as you make it seem. For me, I'm fine with monospaced fonts for prose.
Disagree. Reading monospaced prose sucks big time. For those of us with a little bit of vision deficiency the vary character widths are helpful.
Also, the reduced character width (as a monospaced font inevitable has to be spaced at what the widest chatacters, such as w, require, means that you have to use a smaller font size to get the same amount of info per scroll/line/page whatever, again compromising readability.
Here's a comparison between the posted site, and the same site with the font size bumped up 4px, proportional (just browser default, I didn't cherry pick) and the ridiculously wide line spacing reduced.
Even with all that, the easier to read version is quite a bit more compact. Could likely bump the font size 2 more px and still be smaller.
https://i.imgur.com/DBFI2RU.png
Also, the reduced character width (as a monospaced font inevitable has to be spaced at what the widest chatacters, such as w, require, means that you have to use a smaller font size to get the same amount of info per scroll/line/page whatever, again compromising readability.
Here's a comparison between the posted site, and the same site with the font size bumped up 4px, proportional (just browser default, I didn't cherry pick) and the ridiculously wide line spacing reduced.
Even with all that, the easier to read version is quite a bit more compact. Could likely bump the font size 2 more px and still be smaller.
https://i.imgur.com/DBFI2RU.png
I'm surprised when people notice fonts. If the font is weird, or very decorative then sure, I would notice a font in Papyrus or Comic Sans. On my kindle I set it to the modern sans sarif font because its easier to read, for me. If there was no option to change the font I probably wouldn't have noticed, though.
I don't want say this in a way that comes off as insulting, but I'll just say it and please don't take it as a put down: if my kid came to me and expressed this much frustration and difficulty because of a sans sarif or monospaced font I would be concerned they had a problem with their vision or an issue processing what they saw, and I might research and/or take them to get checked out.
I don't want say this in a way that comes off as insulting, but I'll just say it and please don't take it as a put down: if my kid came to me and expressed this much frustration and difficulty because of a sans sarif or monospaced font I would be concerned they had a problem with their vision or an issue processing what they saw, and I might research and/or take them to get checked out.
I wouldn't be bothered about it in this case (I'm much more offended when the font size or margins are stupid), but to use your phrase "I don't want say this in a way that comes off as insulting, but I'll just say it and please don't take it as a put down..."
You probably just don't have a strong sense of aesthetics. Some people notice design-y stuff and some people don't. A lot of people do notice fonts, or misaligned margins, or whatever. And a lot of people don't. The latter category are probably never going to be good designers or artists or whatever. People are different.
You probably just don't have a strong sense of aesthetics. Some people notice design-y stuff and some people don't. A lot of people do notice fonts, or misaligned margins, or whatever. And a lot of people don't. The latter category are probably never going to be good designers or artists or whatever. People are different.
You are right, while I might notice that sort of thing you mention it wouldn't distract me much. There are other things that completely make it impossible for me to function, like direct lighting in or near my field of view. I could claim like you do that people who have a bright light bulb hanging right next to their tv are just blind to some deeper experience, but probably they just aren't bothered by it.
What makes you think these proclivities about font choice are universal then? Maybe you are just insisting on what you find aesthetically appealing, while many people would equally validly feel the opposite?
What makes you think these proclivities about font choice are universal then? Maybe you are just insisting on what you find aesthetically appealing, while many people would equally validly feel the opposite?
Fixed width fonts have a special purpose. They're designed to fill that purpose, not to be optimal for other things.
There's an age-old debate of how much "good taste" is subjective, but in this particular case, it's someone hammering a nail in with a wrench. Some will be bothered, others not, but it's definitely the wrong tool for the job.
The example of not liking lights in certain places isn't a very good one. It's an attempt to elide all "things people don't like" into subjectivity, but there are actually things that are better and worse. You would agree that website design can be better or worse, right? And that some people would have a better eye for good or bad design? With me so far? I'm saying you're probably not one of the people out on the end of the spectrum that's best able to recognize good and bad in design, but I hope you recognize that good and bad design exist, and that people vary in their ability to recognize it.
There's an age-old debate of how much "good taste" is subjective, but in this particular case, it's someone hammering a nail in with a wrench. Some will be bothered, others not, but it's definitely the wrong tool for the job.
The example of not liking lights in certain places isn't a very good one. It's an attempt to elide all "things people don't like" into subjectivity, but there are actually things that are better and worse. You would agree that website design can be better or worse, right? And that some people would have a better eye for good or bad design? With me so far? I'm saying you're probably not one of the people out on the end of the spectrum that's best able to recognize good and bad in design, but I hope you recognize that good and bad design exist, and that people vary in their ability to recognize it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I want to say to you, in earnest, things will get better and a bad period in your life will almost always unexpectedly improve sooner than you would think.
This an extremely weird passive-aggressive flex. The thread basically went, "I think people that notice font problems have something wrong with them." To which I respond, "No, designers and design-y people notice stuff like that." And then to go from there to this is pretty, bwah?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sentences in all caps are much worse IMO.
MongoDB Atlas is a surprisingly good managed database product. I'm not a huge fan of someone else running my databases, but I think it might be the best one you can run across any cloud. If you like MongoDB (and, ignore the memes, there is a lot to like nowadays), and are OK paying a bit more to have someone run your database, I'd strongly consider Atlas.