> Which means processing huge amount of data. Which SQL databases were never designed for.
When an article opens with a statement like it's difficult to give it much credence at that point. Unfortunately, this ignorance is very common among the MongoDB crowd.
Like your example? millions of new records every month? That's not a "huge amount of data". We're adding tens of millions new records each day, into mysql, and I would still consider our usage extremely intermediate if not amateur.
MongoDB has many benefits, they've improved on numerous oversights and flaws in their initial design, and it's becoming better all the time. What I'd love to actually see change is the naive belief of MongoDB users that it's a new, unique or vastly superior solution.
Neither of the comments nor mine were specifically in relation to this particular article though.
Since I'm taking a few hits on "millions" I should perhaps clarify it's more like "hundreds of millions". Still obviously not a gigantic amount but certainly enough for me to be able to say that it is functional enough and robust enough as a database that a lot of the negativity is if not unwarranted, then at least excessive.
When an article opens with a statement like it's difficult to give it much credence at that point. Unfortunately, this ignorance is very common among the MongoDB crowd.
Like your example? millions of new records every month? That's not a "huge amount of data". We're adding tens of millions new records each day, into mysql, and I would still consider our usage extremely intermediate if not amateur.
MongoDB has many benefits, they've improved on numerous oversights and flaws in their initial design, and it's becoming better all the time. What I'd love to actually see change is the naive belief of MongoDB users that it's a new, unique or vastly superior solution.