{"id":30666,"date":"2019-10-31T21:36:48","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T18:36:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/byla-la-mongodb-voobshhe-pravilnym-vyborom\/"},"modified":"2019-10-31T21:36:48","modified_gmt":"2019-10-31T18:36:48","slug":"byla-la-mongodb-voobshhe-pravilnym-vyborom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/administrirovanie\/byla-la-mongodb-voobshhe-pravilnym-vyborom","title":{"rendered":"Was MongoDB truly the right choice?","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"

Recently, I learned that Red Hat is removing support for MongoDB from Satellite<\/a><\/noindex> (reportedly due to licensing changes). This made me think, as I\u2019ve seen a lot of articles over the past few years claiming how terrible MongoDB is and that no one should ever use it. But during this time, MongoDB has evolved into a much more mature product. What happened? Is all the hate really due to marketing missteps with the new DBMS? Or are people just using MongoDB inappropriately?<\/p>\n

If you think I\u2019m defending MongoDB, please read the disclaimer<\/a><\/noindex> at the end of the article.
\n<\/a><\/noindex><\/p>\n

New Trend<\/h1>\n

\nI\u2019ve been in the software industry longer than I care to admit, but I have still only experienced a fraction of the trends that have struck our field. I\u2019ve witnessed the rise of 4GL, AOP, Agile, SOA, Web 2.0, AJAX, blockchain\u2026 the list goes on. Every year, new trends emerge. Some fade quickly, while others fundamentally change software development methods.<\/p>\n

Around each new trend, a certain public excitement is generated: people either jump on the bandwagon themselves or see the noise created by others and follow the crowd. This process was codified by Gartner in the hype cycle<\/a><\/noindex>. Although controversial, this chart roughly describes what happens with technologies before they ultimately become useful.<\/p>\n

Yet every once in a while, a new innovation appears (or experiences a resurgence, as is the case here), driven solely by one specific implementation. In the case of NoSQL, the hype was heavily influenced by the emergence and rapid ascent of MongoDB. MongoDB didn\u2019t start this trend; in fact, major internet companies faced challenges in handling large volumes of data that led to the revival of non-relational databases. The movement began with projects like Google\u2019s Bigtable and Facebook\u2019s Cassandra, but MongoDB became the most well-known and accessible NoSQL database implementation available to most developers.<\/p>\n

Note: You might think I\u2019m conflating document databases with columnar databases, key\/value stores, or any of the numerous other types of data storage that fall under the general definition of NoSQL. And you\u2019d be right. But at the time, chaos ruled. Everyone was obsessed with NoSQL; it became absolutely<\/b> necessary, although many did not see differences in different technologies. For many, MongoDB has become synonymous<\/b> with NoSQL.<\/i><\/p>\n

And developers jumped at the opportunity. The idea of a schema-less database that magically scales to solve any problem was quite enticing. Around 2014, it seemed like everywhere that a relational database like MySQL, Postgres, or SQL Server was used a year ago, MongoDB databases were being deployed instead. When asked why, you could get responses ranging from the mundane \"it's the scalability of the web\" to the more thoughtful \"my data is very loosely structured and fits nicely into a schema-less database.\"<\/p>\n

It's important to remember that MongoDB and document databases, in general, address a number of problems with traditional relational databases:<\/p>\n