While you are evaluating tech, you should look into CouchDB. Its a document store similar to MongoDB, has document versioning built in. I've been using it for projects, so I haven't really looked in depth into MongoDB yet.
Best, Rob On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:57, Scott Olmsted <[email protected]> wrote: > At RailsConf Obie Fernandez gave a talk on a huge rescue project where > they replaced, or at least supplemented MySQL with MongoDB for handling > complex medical records. It apparently worked very well for them. > > I also have a medical records projects, though it is a greenfield project, > and I'm looking at MongoDB. I would rather not have two databases, so I'm > hoping Mongo can do it all. One of the requirements is that virtually > nothing can be deleted, new test results, comments, reports and such should > be the default for viewing, but all the old versions should be available. > Aside from running into the 4MB limit per document, stuffing them into the > same document seems like a solution. > > Does anyone have any observations based on experience or links to > discussions about how to decide if MongoDB is really suitable? I've got the > basics under control, it can't do transactions, etc, I'm especially looking > for insights that might preclude our using Mongo. > > Thanks much, > > Scott > > -- > SD Ruby mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby -- SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
