370
See MongoDB (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is kinda absolute BS at this point, though.

Mongo has acid transactions, and has for years now. Although this is only within the same database, there are plenty of dbms (including rdbms) that don't support cross-database transactions.

Mongo also, since time immemorial, has had "write concern" to ensure that it's written to disk (to the journal) before the transaction is completed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    This post is very timely because I was just introducing some new people to Mongo earlier this week and led off with "Now you might still hear people say 'mongo is trash, it's not even ACID compliant!' but those people are dumb... it's had that for years and years and is just another DBMS at this point (but not relational)"

    ... the last part also answers the other reply to this post. Yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So is it just another database software at this point, then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    With a JS-based query language, yeah

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yes, ish. There are aspects of it that are really valuable, and fit some use cases extremely well. But, in some senses, yes. Like any DBMS, you've got to know it's strengths and weaknesses. And if you do, there are definitely circumstances where you'd choose it over others. But not always.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent