25+ alternatīvie un atvērtā koda datu bāzu dzinēji

[marrtins]

Aleksejs, no kuries tādas domas, ka sqlite varētu būt izkonkurējis BDB? :O

[Aleksejs]

Tā tik tāda spekulācija no manas puses - vienkārši cik esmu šobrīd redzējis daudzas aplikācijas, piemēram, mozilla firefox kā lokālās iekšējās DB izmanto tieši SQLite.

[Aleksejs]

http://blog.10gen.com/post/437029788/json-db-vs-odbms

Document-oriented and object-oriented databases are philosophically more different than one might at first expect.

[Mr.Key]

Žēl, ka šobrīd šis visnotaļ interesantais links neveras vaļā.

 

Failsistēma jau arī pēc idejas ir datubāze.. Tāpat kā vizītkaršu blociņš, teorētiski taču var būt pieprasījums "SELECT Phone FROM blocins.vizitkartes WHERE Name = 'Jānis ... ", un piešķilt klāt SMS endžinu, kurš aizsūta sekretārei darba uzdevumu, savukārt sekretāre īsziņā atsūta atbildi :D

 

Vispār, tas ko gribēju teikt, ir paldies par linkiem.

[Aleksejs]

Mēģini tagad - vēlreiz pārbaudīju - man verās.

 

Un - Lūdzu (~;

[Aleksejs]

Atgriežoties pie NoSQL tēmas...

lūk visai kritisks raksts par MongoDB:

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FD3xe6Jt

Pārpublicēju, jo var no pastebina pazust:

 

Don't use MongoDB

=================

 

I've kept quiet for awhile for various political reasons, but I now

feel a kind of social responsibility to deter people from banking

their business on MongoDB.

 

Our team did serious load on MongoDB on a large (10s of millions

of users, high profile company) userbase, expecting, from early good

experiences, that the long-term scalability benefits touted by 10gen

would pan out. We were wrong, and this rant serves to deter you

from believing those benefits and making the same mistake

we did. If one person avoid the trap, it will have been

worth writing. Hopefully, many more do.

 

Note that, in our experiences with 10gen, they were nearly always

helpful and cordial, and often extremely so. But at the same

time, that cannot be reason alone to supress information about

the failings of their product.

 

Why this matters

----------------

 

Databases must be right, or as-right-as-possible, b/c database

mistakes are so much more severe than almost every other variation

of mistake. Not only does it have the largest impact on uptime,

performance, expense, and value (the inherit value of the data),

but data has *inertia*. Migrating TBs of data on-the-fly is

a massive undertaking compared to changing drcses or fixing the

average logic error in your code. Recovering TBs of data while

down, limited by what spindles can do for you, is a helpless

feeling.

 

Databases are also complex systems that are effectively black

boxes to the end developer. By adopting a database system,

you place absolute trust in their ability to do the right thing

with your data to keep it consistent and available.

 

Why is MongoDB popular?

-----------------------

 

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that MongoDB is popular,

and that there are valid reasons for its popularity.

 

* It is remarkably easy to get running

* Schema-free models that map to JSON-like structures

have great appeal to developers (they fit our brains),

and a developer is almost always the individual who

makes the platform decisions when a project is in

its infancy

* Maturity and robustness, track record, tested real-world

use cases, etc, are typically more important to sysadmin

types or operations specialists, who often inherit the

platform long after the initial decisions are made

* Its single-system, low concurrency read performance benchmarks

are impressive, and for the inexperienced evaluator, this

is often The Most Important Thing

 

Now, if you're writing a toy site, or a prototype, something

where developer productivity trumps all other considerations,

it basically doesn't matter *what* you use. Use whatever

gets the job done.

 

But if you're intending to really run a large scale system

on Mongo, one that a business might depend on, simply put:

 

Don't.

 

Why not?

--------

 

**1. MongoDB issues writes in unsafe ways *by default* in order to

win benchmarks**

 

If you don't issue getLastError(), MongoDB doesn't wait for any

confirmation from the database that the command was processed.

This introduces at least two classes of problems:

 

* In a concurrent environment (connection pools, etc), you may

have a subsequent read fail after a write has "finished";

there is no barrier condition to know at what point the

database will recognize a write commitment

* Any unknown number of save operations can be dropped on the floor

due to queueing in various places, things outstanding in the TCP

buffer, etc, when your connection drops of the db were to be KILL'd or

segfault, hardware crash, you name it

 

**2. MongoDB can lose data in many startling ways**

 

Here is a list of ways we personally experienced records go missing:

 

1. They just disappeared sometimes. Cause unknown.

2. Recovery on corrupt database was not successful,

pre transaction log.

3. Replication between master and slave had *gaps* in the oplogs,

causing slaves to be missing records the master had. Yes,

there is no checksum, and yes, the replication status had the

slaves current

4. Replication just stops sometimes, without error. Monitor

your replication status!

 

**3. MongoDB requires a global write lock to issue any write**

 

Under a write-heavy load, this will kill you. If you run a blog,

you maybe don't care b/c your R:W ratio is so high.

 

**4. MongoDB's sharding doesn't work that well under load**

 

Adding a shard under heavy load is a nightmare.

Mongo either moves chunks between shards so quickly it DOSes

the production traffic, or refuses to more chunks altogether.

 

This pretty much makes it a non-starter for high-traffic

sites with heavy write volume.

 

**5. mongos is unreliable**

 

The mongod/config server/mongos architecture is actually pretty

reasonable and clever. Unfortunately, mongos is complete

garbage. Under load, it crashed anywhere from every few hours

to every few days. Restart supervision didn't always help b/c

sometimes it would throw some assertion that would bail out a

critical thread, but the process would stay running. Double

fail.

 

It got so bad the only usable way we found to run mongos was

to run haproxy in front of dozens of mongos instances, and

to have a job that slowly rotated through them and killed them

to keep fresh/live ones in the pool. No joke.

 

**6. MongoDB actually once deleted the entire dataset**

 

MongoDB, 1.6, in replica set configuration, would sometimes

determine the wrong node (often an empty node) was the freshest

copy of the data available. It would then DELETE ALL THE DATA

ON THE REPLICA (which may have been the 700GB of good data)

AND REPLICATE THE EMPTY SET. The database should never never

never do this. Faced with a situation like that, the database

should throw an error and make the admin disambiguate by

wiping/resetting data, or forcing the correct configuration.

NEVER DELETE ALL THE DATA. (This was a bad day.)

 

They fixed this in 1.8, thank god.

 

**7. Things were shipped that should have never been shipped**

 

Things with known, embarrassing bugs that could cause data

problems were in "stable" releases--and often we weren't told

about these issues until after they bit us, and then only b/c

we had a super duper crazy platinum support contract with 10gen.

 

The response was to send up a hot patch and that they were

calling an RC internally, and then run that on our data.

 

**8. Replication was lackluster on busy servers**

 

Replication would often, again, either DOS the master, or

replicate so slowly that it would take far too long and

the oplog would be exhausted (even with a 50G oplog).

 

We had a busy, large dataset that we simply could

not replicate b/c of this dynamic. It was a harrowing month

or two of finger crossing before we got it onto a different

database system.

 

**But, the real problem:**

 

You might object, my information is out of date; they've

fixed these problems or intend to fix them in the next version;

problem X can be mitigated by optional practice Y.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

 

The real problem is that so many of these problems existed

in the first place.

 

Database developers must be held to a higher standard than

your average developer. Namely, your priority list should

typically be something like:

 

1. Don't lose data, be very deterministic with data

2. Employ practices to stay available

3. Multi-node scalability

4. Minimize latency at 99% and 95%

5. Raw req/s per resource

 

10gen's order seems to be, #5, then everything else in some

order. #1 ain't in the top 3.

 

These failings, and the implied priorities of the company,

indicate a basic cultural problem, irrespective of whatever

problems exist in any single release: a lack of the requisite

discipline to design database systems businesses should bet on.

 

Please take this warning seriously.

[marrtins]

Par to MongoDB cik lasīju doķus - nu baisi jau smuki un tā. Pašam gana vēl nav bijusi vajadzība. Tikai nesen arī uzdūros rakstam par sliktu pieredzi ar Mango (kur? neatceros.), tagad vēl šis.

[codez]

Mongo db nav transakciju, tas 90% gadījumu pilnībā izslēdz iespēju uzbūvēt pareizi strādājošas aplikācijas.

[ieleja]

nekur nevarēju atrast, kurš tad to pastebin sacerējumu sacerējis?

[briedis]

nevermind

Edited November 7, 2011 by briedis

[ieleja]

Is it FUD, a hoax or a real complaint about MongoDB? That is the question being asked by many after an anonymous posting on Pastebin called "Don't use MongoDB" created a flurry of controversy around the open source NoSQL database

[...]

 

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/MongoDB-FUD-or-Hoax-controversy-spreads-online-1374710.html