John,
That's not what I recall. I recall that the client got cold feet some
months into the effort after reading the Use Cases page
(http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Use+Cases) and asked another
firm (Intridea) for their opinion. Though Intridea said they should
abandon MongoDb and Intridea could finish it in a month with MySQL,
Obie was able to get the client to stick with what Hashrocket
created. It would be pretty brash for him to declare that Hashrocket
"successfully leveraged MongoDB and Rails" if their solution was not in use.
I'm glad to hear that you have used Mongo successfully in several
projects, but I will look at Friendly and compare.
Thanks,
Scott
At 01:41 PM 6/28/2010, you wrote:
Scott, did you also hear the part where the client replaced that Mongo
solution and went back to a SQL solution --- the main reasons from
what I can gather were that the client had built up significant IT
infrastructure around SQL, including tools and DBA skills, etc. Mongo
just did not fit well into that infrastructure, which in large
organizations in certainly something to consider. A compromise could
be something like Friendly (http://github.com/jamesgolick/friendly) or
others that allow you to store "documents" in a MySQL text column. The
DBAs would at least still be able to backup and maintain the DB with
existing tools, and do simple queries, even though much of the data
may be "hidden away" in the text column.
Personally, I have used Mongo in several projects with great success,
and have not run into any data loss issues (knock on wood), but I have
also had a few larger clients reject a Mongo-based solution for the
above reasons, even though it was a much better fit for their
application.
Regards,
John Lynch, CTO
Rigel Group, LLC
[email protected]
Mobile: 760-515-2653
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:57 PM, 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
--
SD Ruby mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
