Agreed. Seeing a nice, clean user-facing API tells you practically nothing about the performance characteristics and failure modes you can expect to see.

The best database engine I've encountered in this respect is SQLite. It has plenty of information about what design tradeoffs it makes, and why, e.g.:

http://sqlite.org/lockingv3.html

http://sqlite.org/fileformat2.html

http://sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html

You nailed it. I think the issue is that people don't know what questions to ask when gathering the requirements.

I'd like to know more about how this part of the article came to be:

"This choice was made early on and it was supposed to be a temporary one."

HOW was that choice made. What requirements were out there. I think too many people choose Mongo because they believe it's "schemaless"[1] and faster for development, but don't look at the requirements for their actual use case.

[1] - There's always a schema. Either it's informally defined by your code or represented formally somewhere else.

It was one of those, "we need to do something now and this will work" solutions. We had a really talented consultant working for us, writing some of the early code. He was familiar with Mongo and wanted to go that route. Early on I said we should use Cassandra for this, but it took us quite some time to get to the point of being able to migrate. A testament to his code and the "this will be temporary" foreknowledge is the fact that we could swap data stores in a pretty massive sense without much in the way of outward-facing changes to our processing engine.

I think the hard thing for us up front was that trying to explain Cassandra data models to someone (and this guy is really really good) and then hand the rest of the work over to them to implement now, on a contracting rate is not a trivial problem. And we needed to hurry for both deadlines and burn rate.

Cool, thanks for the info!

A pattern I've seen on a lot of the negative Mongo articles has been people using it for things they probably shouldn't.

I've yet to use it for any load, and am struggling to triangulate from all the articles I read on whether it does/doesn't scale efficiently.

All the issues I have hit so far have been self-inflicted, it is still one of the best new technologies I've used in years - but is has taken a while to stop thinking in SQL equivalents and start thinking natively.

> whether [Mongo] does/doesn't scale efficiently

It doesn't. Three words: "global write lock". Writes block reads, reads block writes. Implications: if you run a query in production that doesn't hit an index, all traffic stops. The notablescan setting is a very, very good idea. This also means all queries must have an index, so Mongo ends up with more indexes than say, postgres would.

It's impossible to configure a clustered mongo environment to not lose data: http://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb

Sharding configuration is baroque, and limited.

> Implications: if you run a query in production that doesn't hit an index, all traffic stops

Even if Mongo did have a global write lock, which it doesn't as has already been covered, it yields on page faults which means that other queries are minimally impacted. See: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/concurrency/#does-a-read-...

Mongo does have a global write lock. A per-db lock does me very little good when I only have one DB.

As to your linked doc, emphasis added:

> In some situations, read and write operations can yield their locks.

> Long running read and write operations, such as queries, updates, and deletes, yield under many conditions.

In practice, I've been bitten hard by this. A new feature rolls out, and users can't log in anymore, because a query is taking 2 minutes to run.

That's solves the contention problem, but just by virtue of yields on page faults being a big feature you can see where Mongo does have some scaling issue.

The global lock was removed in 2.2

https://blog.serverdensity.com/goodbye-global-lock-mongodb-2...

Now locking is on the database level.

That sorta makes it sound worse, honestly, if databases in MongoDB are anything like you'd use the word for in any other datastore. A global lock across all databases is mind-bogglingly confusing; what's one DB got to do with another?

Couldn't you just work around that before by running a separate Mongo process per database?

Saying it's now on the database still means any single-database app is globally locked. Or does using Mongo imply you're going to be making lots of databases so this actually means anything?

That's what we do - dozens of databases, containing one collection.

It's perverse.

TokuMX. They ripped out the native MongoDB storage engine and replaced it with the TokuDB engine.

http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-tokudb-might-mean-...

TokuDB doesn't currently have a drop-in replacement strategy, so you'd need to migrate your whole cluster.

A daunting task with hundreds of shards!

Such a thing could never exist, because the point of tokumx is to change the storage system, so at some point you have to change the storage over and that's just going to be a rewrite of all your data. It sucks but that's the way it is.

Yes, but if I could replace the replicas and let them refill one at a time, then replace the masters, I could do a rolling conversion.

But replication from MongoDB to TokuDB does not work.

Actually, you can do that. I wrote a tool to allow replication from MongoDB to TokuMX: http://www.tokutek.com/2013/07/tokumx-1-0-3-seamless-migrati.... It doesn't allow TokuMX instances to satisfy write concern or to participate in elections, but you can slave a TokuMX replica set off a MongoDB replica set just fine, and this allows you to do a rolling migration where you replace one secondary at a time.

You could say the same about multi-master environments. Those are prime opportunities for losing data (eventually consistent does not mean consistent, it means data loss)

Hopefully this article wasn't seen as bashing MongoDB. I think I mention it was pretty reliable for us even under load. We were just solving a problem with it for which it wasn't the best solution.

It doesn't. MongoDB is a dog, and I know this because I run hundreds of instances of it in a production environment. I need to use 10x as many hosts as I should to support less than 30K queries per second.

The second I can migrate to another data store, I will. Unfortunately that kind of refactor isn't possible right now, but all new projects are using different tools.

For what kind of application or workload is MongoDB superior to the alternatives?

The kind that lives on a single VPS and requires a rich query layer to bootstrap quickly.

> I'd love to see [git-for-computer-scientists], but for every DB technology.

this is a fantastic idea. if someone gets this going I'll enthusiastically contribute.

+1

It would be useful to treat databases as those big data structures, knowing the best/average/worst case, cpu vs. memory trade-offs for search, etc.