![MongoDB_Logo_Full[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fVMjKc2.png "MongoDB_Logo_Full[1].png")
do you use it or it's crap?
>>53356904
> it's crap?
kill you're self gayman
I'm using it with ASP.NET for a local manga manager/viewer. Seems to be working fine so far, but I've just started using it. JSON is easy to read and modify that's why I chose it.
>>53357005
Why wouldn't you use SQLite? .NET makes working with it trivial.
>>53357019
MongoDB seems to work great with ASP.NET 5. Just gotta add the nuget package.
I was looking for alternatives to SQL and found mongoDB and noticed it used JSON so I picked it.
>>53356904
BongoDB
MONGODB IS WEB SCALE
If you're not using sqlite3, you've gone wrong somewhere.
It's fine if you don't mind corrupted data and a crashing server
>>53357468
Or need something that can handle more than a dozen concurrent users.
>>53357503
he doesn't need more than 0 concurrent users for fizzbuzz though ;^}
>>53356904
Whole nosql is overrated. People think that its databases v2 and thats bullshit. Relational databases are still better for most usecases and for all the nosql niches there are more suitable alternatives to mongo. Btw postgre has nosql features and it wont be only one.
>>53357503
Yeah, like sqlite3.
As far as I know, it's really only decent at storing unnormalized data; mostly for big data.
My lecturer is begging us all to use this shit for our cloud storage software development. In my opinion, it's just non-relational shit that should never be used unless you're gathering a whole bunch of data to use to be analyzed, nothing more, especially when looking at performance and scalability issues.
>>53357570
sql is not web scale
mongodb is web scale
>>53356904
> when I need a KV store
what is Redis
>>53356904
no reason to use. No clear advantages over MySQL
Literally seems like a meme db
>>53357696
>sql is not web scale
>>53357771
But it doesn't scale. Everybody knows that relational databases don't scale because they use JOINs and write to disk.
>>53357815
>relational databases are slow because they write to disk
son... I have some news...
>>53357893
slow meant to == scale
>>53357893
SQL is slow as a dog. MongoDB will run circles around SQL because MongoDB is web scale.
>>53357947
Panjeet, has your boss asked you to read an article about new buzzword databases?
I'm using mongodb for a project, it does the job, but there are better alternatives.
My main issues are the MMF system is uses, it will literally consume 100% of your ram eventually and everything else will start hard faulting until mongodb is restarted.
The other issue is the way it stores data, it's not really a big problem, I'd just prefer if it didn't dump all the collections into one large split file.
And the PHP support is crazy bad, i couldn't even get the module to run without loading php as fastcgi.
>>53357968
Relational databases weren't built for web scale. MongoDB handles web scale. You turn it on and it scales right up.
>>53358009
are you an aggressive sales lady? Because dem buzzwords make it definitely seem like it
>>53358022
I'm a web programmer.
>>53358042
KEK, more like, wordpress plugin manager
Literally, lower than a Poo in Loo. At least they use actual programming languages to write their shit tier code in.
> postgresql
> whynotboth.jpeg
>people still fall for quotes from that MongoDB video
>>53358807
tell that to this kek worthy faggot >>53358009
>>53358009
>>53357947
Are we buzzwords now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWaDa8taiIQ
>He doesn't use obungabogooDB
It's like you hate equality, stupid slave owner.
>>53356904
It's decent for prototyping, but that lack of normalization, lack of ACID compliance, and generally shitty performance make it poor for real life usage.
>>53356904
So I got the impression for this thread that you guise hate all database thingies. Any good ones?
>>53358867
Just use PostgreSQL.
>>53358908
>FSF approved
Excellent
>>53356904
MongoDB has the "silent write discard" problem.
It's not a good database.
RethinkDB doesn't have data loss problems and scales better.
>>53356904
http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2013/11/11/why-you-should-never-use-mongodb/
Here's a decent write-up explaining why it should only be used for temp cache DBs.
>>53356904
Mongo like candy.
>>53356904
I wanted to try it out for my private project, but was afraid of it and went with mysql.
What's the benefit of mongoDB?
>>53356904
yes
Absolute crap. Holy shit does it suck.
A "fire and forget" database is NEVER acceptable. Seriously, this is a fucking ridiculous idea.
Look at yourself, anon. Do you actually think that you will ever work on a project that is so large that a relational database won't work? You won't. Fuck you.
>>53359294
there is none. It's all a placebo effect that gets 16 year old fuccbois anae all wet.
Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWaDa8taiIQ
>>53356904
It's solid, but not the right tool for every job. Sometimes the NoSQL makes a lot of sense. Other times, you need that sweet relational goodness.
>>53356904
Yes
>>53359321
>A "fire and forget" database is NEVER acceptable
For you
>>53359043
tl;dr don't use mongoDB if a different DB fits your use case better
whoa I never would've thought
>>53357585
>especially when looking at performance and scalability issues.
that's literally why mongo exists though, you can't scale relation db's because they're ACID compliant. you can't get great performance for the same reason.
>>53358178
postgresql is pretty neat, it's what we're currently using but are switching to a "polyglot" setup with redis for local cache/kv, mongo as the primary bulk data store(we mostly deal with CMS data so a document store is exactly what we need), and finally neo4j for actual relation queries. though the neo4j stuff is yet to be tested, it does seem like a much nicer way to look at things, currently we store user data in relational form in postgre and the "pages" are stored as embedded json, it becomes a real clusterfuck if you want to reference some of the page data against user data though.
>>53358976
if you want write integrity, you can provision one or more of the DB's or even just certain write operations to block until it's written to disk, if there's a replication issue or the disk has caught fire it will block forever, so your application and handle that and store your supercritical finance data _somewhere else_ until the DB is working again.
>>53359442
this, it's funny since a lot of the anti mongo movement is from mysql faggots who will use it for all the wrong things.
>>53359708
https://aphyr.com/posts/322-jepsen-mongodb-stale-reads
Nosql is the future
>>53359773
only a few paragraphs in and they're doing document-document comparisons during write operations, this is correct, mongo isn't ACID compliant, if you absolutely need linear consistency you will need to perform a write->read->retry loop to guard against inconsistent data.
put simply, you should be using postgresql for that example so it's automatic, just don't go building web apps that all dump into your primary datastore and wonder why it's dog shit to work with. :^)
