Talk:MongoDB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

name[edit]

says "from humongous" but I think it may also be a reference to Blazing Saddles. wow it's good 173.164.238.54 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Independent of where the name comes from, "Mongo" is a four-letter word in some parts of the world, e.g. Germany. A very rude, very politically incorrect one. It means retard/idiot by associating someone with Down's Syndrom. Shows that 10gen didn't do much due diligence when selecting the name - "We are now using the IdiotDB" isn't something you want to tell your boss. 93.129.21.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

just want to add, Mongo has the same (negative) meaning both in Norwegian and Swedish, and "Down's syndrome" / "Edwards syndrom" were both called "mongolisme" in the past (both in norwegian and swedish). Divinity76 (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Single-Server Durability[edit]

I think the article would benefit from having a brief overview of the issues around MongoDB's lack of single-server durability. --Aimaz (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As of version 1.8.0, MongoDB does have single-server durability.Beaddy1238 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaddy1238 (talkcontribs)
See [1]. Removing lack of single server durability from article. Ochbad (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The current linked criticism is from a competitor (who hid his commercial interest in a competing product Hyperdex when blogging this) and is also technically inaccurate). ^ Broken by Design: MongoDB Fault Tolerance is written by author of Hyperdex.

I'm putting some note of the fact back in. The default WriteConcern dropped acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single client failure for the first five years of the software's release. The "SAFE" WriteConcern still drops acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single server failure, or at least it did last year. I think Emin Gün Sirer's writeup hits the relevant technical points in a clear way. It also contains a lot of flames; if you can find a better writeup of the issues with MongoDB and durability, please do cite them. grendel|khan 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who left the comment preceding Grendel's. If it was 203.99.208.3, who left lots of comments on this talk page, he has an IP registered to Cognizant Technology Solution (India) per Wikipedia, so it is silly to be claiming that Emin Gün Sirer has a competitive interest due to Hyperdex. He's at Cornell and has oodles of things he's working on, you know how those academics are. I agree with Grendel, that it would be great to get add'l sources, especially some that aren't primary. This article has far too many references to Mongodb documentation, often the same page, under different headings! I hope there's no reference to Mongodb being "web scale" based on that parody video! I can't stop laughing, just thinking about it!--FeralOink (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Performance[edit]

Is there a reliable, third-party source that can provide some valid information about Mongo's actual performance? How does it relate and scale compared to widespred solutions like MySQL and other NoSQL databases? --IP 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.90.168 (talk)

Timeless Specifics[edit]

There's a handful of sections that I thought were TOO detailed; specifically they listed things that will change over time, and it's not clear that this article will be updated to keep up. (even if YOU think that YOU will do it when the time comes.) These sections:

  • Language support
  • Monitoring
  • GUIs

for instance, Monitoring lists some current plugins. fine, but each is an independent project and at least one of the projects will run out of steam over the years; and at least one more, probably many, new plugins will show up. WP is not the place for these details; the Mongo group should maintain lists of what other attachable software is in what status, on their own site (or wherever it is, sourceforge or github...).

Instead of these complete lists, with meticulous links, you should just list a handful of the more prominent examples and refer people to Mongo's website for full details. EG language support. It's written in C++ so list C++; the mongo group would never give up that one no matter how threadbare they become. Then toss in a few server languages - those most likely to be used like PHP and Java. Then say "and, as of Sept 2011, about two dozen other languages". The detailed information should be in one place: the Mongo website and anybody interested can and should go there. What languages Mongo supports 10 years from now, will probably be different, and in fact Mongo might be gone by then, and there'll be nobody to update this page. So think of the future and make the page timeless.

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging[edit]

TO THE GUY WHO IS PUTTING unnecessary tags: you're putting SEVEN tags on the article without providing any concrete reason. First time, you did not provide any reason. Second time, you said "definitely overbloated and its tone is highly inappropriate", without actually specifying how does that related to SEVEN different tags?

  • It needs additional citations for verification. - article has SEVENTY-FIVE citations
  • It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. - Give me a SINGLE sentence that's written like an advertisement.
  • It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. - The article has NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE which is instruction or how-to or advice.
  • It may contain original research. - article has 75 citations and NEARLY EVERY SENTENCE is cited
  • It may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. - WHICH part? All the sections are necessary to describe a database software.
  • It may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. - WHICH senentence promotes the subject? Also, why are you putting both advert and promotion tags?
  • It may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help make it understandable to non-experts. WHICH part?

This is classic example of trying to defame the subject of the article using drive-by tagging without actually making any effort to improve the article. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you're removing comments from talk pages. This is ridiculous. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
MUltiple times, wow. NOBODY is opposed to tags. but if you put 7 tags, give a reason. This is arm twisting tactic of yours and censoring of others opinons. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WHY can't you selective tag sentences or remove content or post talk page comments instead of defacing the article? 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not evil. Let me address the tags one by one:
  1. The total doesn't matter. There are still unsourced statements.
  2. The article is just a features list.
  3. Describing how things occur may make this too much like a manual.
  4. Some things seem to have been only found out by users.
  5. Not everyone is a database admin.
  6. I see lots of "MongoDB supports" etc. sentences; it's just excess.
  7. Not everyone uses JS.

It's plain obvious.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


  1. Then tag unsourced statements.
  2. No, it's not. And even if it was, that's not the reason for putting up an advert or promotion tag. Go read the guidelines first.
  3. No it doesn't. Otherwise, half of techncial wikipedia articles would be "manuals".
  4. Which things?
  5. Agreed. What has it got to do with this discussion, though?
  6. No, it's not if MongoDB indeed supports these features.
  7. Agreed. What has it got to do with this discussion, though?

It's still not obvious why SEVEN tags are necessary. I have repeated this point mutlipile times - RELEVANT tags are not a problem neither are sentence-wise tags. but SEVEN tags reflect insecurity of MS shills. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. The presence of a lot of statements with this tag or needing this tag makes this easier
  2. At least 70% of the article is about the features, with the non-features part mainly being the uses and the intro.
  3. The other technical articles also discuss, rather the simply giving syntax and how-things-work.
  4. "more commonly installed from binary packages" - among others.
  5. Not everyone needs the detail of how MongoDB works. The average Joe knows nothing about this.
  6. Let's try to vary our language.
  7. You need to know JS to understand the example(s). Otherwise it's too nerdy to the reader.

Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia[edit]

"The developer's application must know that it is talking to a sharded cluster when performing some operations. For example, a "findAndModify" query must contain the shard key if the queried collection is sharded". Can someone please explain what gobbledygook like this is doing on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice point. Removing it. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And while you are at it: "Replica sets are similar to master-slave, but they incorporate the ability for the slaves to elect a new master if the current one goes down". While I'm sure that this feature would appeal to Toussaint Louverture, I'm not sure that it is encyclopaedic. Or intelligible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please remove it yourself. I was performing an experimenting, as explained above. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem here? Those sentences look ok to me. The first one says that the application programmer has to keep track of (or recompute) shard keys when using a sharded MongoDB, as opposed to having MongoDB handle this itself. IIRC, Cassandra doesn't make the programmer manage shard keys by hand, so if anything I'd have liked more explanation added of why MongoDB does what it does, not have the info removed. The second one describes a failover mechanism and is also good info.

Andy, do you understand anything about the article that you're criticizing? It is about a program used exclusively by software developers (it has no end-user interface like MS Access), as a component of larger applications that they deliver to end users. As such, its intended audience is primarily developers and to be informative to that audience, it has to include technical details of interest even if those aren't always comprehensible to non-programmers. It's similar to how a solid article on quantum mechanics will necessary assume some physics background. The accepted approach to such articles has generally been that there should be a lede paragraph/introduction aimed at non-specialist audiences, that says generally what the subject matter is about, but after that it is fine to go into technical detail.

Andy's comments on this article (here and at ANI) therefore come across to me as unhelpful, since as a programmer and occasional (non-expert) MongoDB user, I found the material Andy complains about to be relevant and informative (maybe the writing could be touched up a bit). In particular, people reading the article are quite likely comparing MongoDB to other NoSQL databases like Cassandra and Riak, so bringing out the unique characteristics of each db (such as their approaches to sharding and failover) in the articles is exactly the right thing to do. Removing the info does a disservice to our readers. So I'm planning to restore the removed info after checking it against the software docs or the O'Reilly book, to make sure the info was correct. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal": WP:NOTMANUAL. If software developers want to find out about the detailed inner workings of the DB, they can look in "the software docs or the O'Reilly book". In fact, any software developer using Wikipedia to find that sort of information should probably find another job. Any comparisons between this software and similar material should be made with the minimum jargon necessary - and that jargon needs explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Andy, those sections in question don't explain how to use the mentioned features of MongoDB like a manual would. They just summarize what the features are and what they do, so the reader can refer to the manual for details. That is exactly what the article should cover. I agree that the writing could be improved a bit (wrt jargon) but that's a fairly minor issue in my opinion. I don't find your theories about where developers should look for info to be persuasive. They look for info where they can find it, and if something looks useful and relevant and checks out when they look into it further, it is useful. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New tag[edit]

While the new tag is less ugly than the 7 I wanted, I don't think we need to overhaul the entire article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Web Scale[edit]

The only claims to MongoDB being "Web scale" and "Scales right up" are from a satirical video.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twimoki (talkcontribs) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Database Logic[edit]

swirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendraimz (talkcontribs) 06:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Main Features . Load balancing[edit]

When speaking about sharding, the article says "The data is split into ranges (based on the shard key) and distributed across multiple shards.". However, as can be seen at docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/sharding-introduction/ , a hash based sharding (so not only range based sharding) can be used. This point is quite important if someone is trying to evaluate MongoDB by reading the article, as a range based sharding is not quite useful for some needs ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.32.231.213 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)