You're having noSQL problems, I feel bad for you son
Just recently on Hacker News a whole bunch of posts either deriding or defending Mongo (or in some cases noSQL as a whole) appeared. It all started with this. The problems with this little tirade against Mongo are multiple but the foremost is that it was posted entirely anonymously, and I can’t really think of a reason why someone would feel the need to post something like that anonymously other than to hide from ridicule.
The CTO of 10gen responded in the comments and pointed out that this scenario seems highly unlikely at worst and at best is seriously hyperbolised.
The list of posts in the fallout of this totally anonymous and unverified “MongoGate” go on and on, here’s the ones I could find quickly:
- Mongo’s fine
- Why the hate?
- Failing with Mongo
- Mongo 2.0 should have been 1.0
- Let’s have a serious noSQL discussion
- and of course, the blatant trolling…
Some people have rushed to the defence of noSQL, saying things like, “RTFM” and “no SQL involves trade-offs that need to be understood.” In fairness, I’ll admit these are little comfort to people complaining of noSQL’s lack of ACID. However I’m going to avoid the whole technological debate in favor of some generalizing and hand waving.
First, no technology is a panacea, and I’m still confused why as a community we feel the need to construct strawmen out of anything that becomes remotely popular in order to tear it down for not being one. It’s childish, it’s stupid and anyone capable of rational thought can see right through it.
Second, technology wars on the whole are just stupid. Technologies don’t often truly compete directly against each other, instead they simply shift the landscape causing (some) people to make their decisions differently. I’m going to make up some number on the spot here, but I’d wager a guess that that vast majority, so 80%, of people involved in one side or another of a technology war haven’t actually used the technology they argue against. Doubly true (try not to do the math here) for those on the side of whichever is the older technology. Let’s face it there aren’t many developers out there who haven’t used SQL in the past.
Bottom line, the signal to noise ratio of technology flame wars is so low as to be completely worthless as a discussion. Don’t pit SQL against noSQL, or even MySQL against MongoDB. Tell me why you’ve used what and what is amazing about it. As an example I had lunch with someone from Heroku who works on their Postgres team who, while starting the conversation with “don’t use MongoDB”, went on to tell me about some seriously awesome new features of Postgres. I honestly had no idea that while I’m having a grand time playing with noSQL db’s some SQL db’s are getting pretty cool and modern too.
That said, I’ll be sticking with MongoDB for what I’m doing right now. It’s going to take some more serious discussion than that of a simple flame war to deter me from using it. It’s simple, fast, fits with mental models of querying and reading data for web sites easily. I still find the ability to easily create embedded relationship and tree structures within a document useful a lot of the time. It also suits the design of aggregate roots and fits with CQRS concepts like keeping “read” models separate from “write” models (an approach which addresses many of the issues people from the SQL camp constantly harp on against noSQL).
Bottom line, if there is something fundamentally flawed with MongoDB, I have yet to see it but I’ll admit to not having had to deal with any serious scaling scenarios. Most of the complaints I’ve seen have come from environments dealing with very large volumes of data and/or high transaction rates. These are scenarios where plain-old-SQL certainly has it’s problems too, the reality is scaling is still a hard problem. I’ll argue that this is almost always CQRS territory for many, many reasons I’m not going to go into in this post. Bottom line, if you haven’t begun having the discussion about separating writes from reads, storing and publishing domain events to decouple the architectures, and issues like eventual consistency, then no offense, but you likely aren’t qualified to talk about the choice of persistence technology and it’s effect on the scalability.
It’s all too easy to blame the tools instead of the architecture and infrastructure design. Obviously, CQRS by itself isn’t a panacea either, but it does provides patterns and a language around creating scalable domains that has the added benefit of being completely technology agnostic. It applies just as easily to a SQL only as it does to a noSQL, or hybrid environment. Though my gut tells me there are distinct advantages to having noSQL in the mix here, and that it makes more sense once we’ve moved beyond requiring the database to be only safety net.
So if you’re having noSQL problems, I feel bad for you son. I’ve got 99 problems but maintaining a schema ain’t one.