I though it was an interesting post. And while she does include the
paragraph you quote, I thought that her main conclusion was that
document-oriented databases are only good for building a cache in front
of a "real" (i.e., relational) database back end.
It is also clear that part of what drives her to this conclusion is the
design she uses of just a few massive documents. In the simple (but
canonical) example of a collection of blog posts and comments, the basic
document would consist of "one post plus all comments on it" or maybe
even "one user plus all his/her posts and all comments on them". And
so I think she fails to see the ability of well-written views to
aggregate documents on the fly. But I haven't analyzed everything
carefully enough to tell for sure, and so I don't have a clear response
tot he two examples she describes in detail.
-- Kevin
On 11/12/2013 1:19 PM, matt j. sorenson wrote:
interesting write-up on the pitfalls the diaspora project faced down with
mongodb
http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2013/11/11/why-you-should-never-use-mongodb/
I've seen a few "what's your use case" or "what use cases is couchdb good
for" threads on the list, and I'd be curious what the top couchdb minds
have to say about Sarah's assertions, social data and these 'undirected
graphs'.
Sarah actually seems to come to this harsh conclusion [about json document
storage?]:
MongoDB’s ideal use case is even narrower than our television data. The
*only* thing it’s good at is storing arbitrary pieces of JSON. “Arbitrary,”
in this context, means that you don’t care *at all* what’s inside that
JSON. You don’t even look. There is no schema, not even an implicit schema,
as there was in our TV show data. Each document is just a blob whose
interior you make absolutely no assumptions about.
which seems a little extreme to me =/
--
*matt j. sorenson*
