While some of the mockery is out-of-date or rooted in misunderstandings, much of it is well-deserved, and it's difficult to disagree that much of MongoDB's engineering is incredibly simplistic, inefficient, and immature compared to more-established databases like PostgreSQL or MySQL.
You can argue, and I would largely agree, that this is actually part of MongoDB's brilliant marketing strategy, of sacrificing engineering quality in order to get to market faster and build a hype machine, with the idea that the engineering will follow later.
In this post, however, I want to focus on something different: I want to explore some design decisions that I believe MongoDB got right, especially compared to SQL databases, its main competitors1.
Implementations evolve and improve with time, but interfaces last nearly forever. In each of the cases I explore, I contend that MongoDB legitimately out-innovated SQL databases, potentially positioning it – in a few years, once the implementation matures – as a superior database for a wide range of use cases.
This post is not an exhaustive enumeration: In the interests of space, I've chosen a few areas to focus on, in which I think MongoDB has really hit on some good ideas. There are a lot of other differences between MongoDB and a SQL RDBMS; This post shouldn't be construed as either a defense of or a criticism of any individual feature or design choice not listed here.
Structured Operation Format
Let's start with the simplest one. Making the developer interface to the database a structured format instead of a textual query language was a clear win.
SQL is a great language for ad-hoc exploration of data or for building aggregates over data sets. It's an absolutely miserable language for programmatically accessing data.
Querying SQL data involves constructing strings, and then – if you
want to avoid SQL injection – successfully lining up placeholders
between your pile of strings and your programming language. If you
want to insert data, you'll probably end up constructing the string
(?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?) and counting arguments very carefully.
The situation is sufficiently untenable that it's rare to write apps without making use of an ORM or some similar library, creating additional cognitive overhead to using a SQL database, and creating painful impedance mismatches.
By using a structured (BSON) interface, MongoDB makes the experience of programmatically interacting with the database much simpler and less error-prone2. In a world where databases are more frequently used as backend implementation details owned by an application – and thus accessed entirely programmatically – this is a clear win.
BSON probably wasn't the best choice, and MongoDB's implementation isn't perfect. But it's a fundamentally better approach for how we use databases today than SQL is.
Now we'll turn to the more operational side of MongoDB. MongoDB, out of the box, includes support for "replica sets", MongoDB's replication+failover solution. A MongoDB Replica Set consists of a "primary", which services all writes, and a group of "secondaries", which asynchronously replicate from the primary. In the event of a failure of the primary, a raft-like consensus algorithm automatically elects and promotes a new primary node.
Nearly anyone who uses SQL databases in production ends up configuring read replicas, in order to distribute read load, and provide a hot spare in the event of the loss of the primary. However, with both MySQL and PostgreSQL, configuring replication remains complex and error-prone, both in terms of the breadth of options available, and in the set-up and management of read replicas. I challenge anyone unfamiliar with the respective systems to read mysql or postgres's replication documentation and efficiently determine the correct setup for a simple read slave.
And automated failover is even more fraught in the SQL world; Github famously disabled their automated failover after their solution caused more outages than it resolved. Even once you have a failover solution – and everyone's looks slightly different – client libraries are often not built with failover in mind, requiring applications to manually detect failure and trigger reconnects.
MongoDB's replica sets are not without their warts, but the conceptual model is fundamentally strong, and allows operators to, with minimal fussing, configure read replicas, manually or automatically fail over to a new server, add or remove replicas, and monitor replication health, via simple, standard interfaces, all with minimal or no downtime, and almost entirely using in-band administrative commands (no editing of configuration files or command-line options).
Baking replication, membership, and failover into the core also means that drivers can be aware of it at a much higher level. The standard MongoDB client drivers are aware of replica set membership, and automatically discover the primary and reconnect as failovers happen and the primary moves around or nodes come and go. Awareness of secondaries also allows application developers to select desired consistency and durability guarantees ("read preference" and "write concern" in Mongo jargon) on a per-operation level.
In a world where we increasingly take for granted the devops mantra of "cattle, not pets", and where databases are often the quintessential "pet" (special, singleton, servers requiring lots of careful manual attention), the MongoDB replica set model moves us strongly towards a world where a database is a cluster of mostly-indistinguishable machines that can be individually swapped out at will, and the system will adapt appropriately.
MongoDB's oplog is the data structure behind MongoDB's replication. Similar in concept to MySQL's row-based replication, it logs every modification made to the database, at level of individual documents. By following this log and replaying the writes, secondaries in a replica set are able to efficiently follow the primary and stay up-to-date.
At a technical level, the oplog is not particularly novel or innovative. In terms of how it fits into the overall system, however, the design is compelling in a number of ways.
The oplog is exposed directly as a collection (
MongoDB, and can be accessed just like any other collection. This
design choice simplifies interacting with the oplog in a number of
ways: the same APIs can be used in client bindings, the standard
authentication and authorization mechanisms work, and the same data
format (BSON objects) is used, making entries easy for users to
In addition, the oplog uses GTID-like position identifiers that are identical across all nodes in a replica set. This allows clients to seamlessly follow writes across the replica set as a logical unit, without thinking too hard about the physical topology or which nodes are primary.
Rather than define a new serialization format for changes, the oplog reuses BSON, like everything else in MongoDB. In addition, the structure of BSON entries is quite simple – there are only five or so types of operations. The conjunction of these two features makes it easy to parse and interpret oplog entries.
The combination of all these features means that it's feasible – even easy – to use the oplog not just as an internal implementation detail, but as an application-visible log of all database writes, which can be used to drive external systems, such as data analysis pipelines or backup systems.
This post is not a holistic defense of MongoDB as it exists today. MongoDB remains immature, and today's SQL databases remain some of the most mature, battle-tested, reliable, and performant storage solutions ever created. And MongoDB made many novel design decisions other than the ones I've cited above; some are good ideas, some are bad ideas, and some remain to be determined.
However, I do believe that, in significant ways, MongoDB is much better designed for the ways we write and run applications in 2015 than the SQL RDBMS paradigm.
Put that way, of course, this realization shouldn't be surprising: SQL databases – while incredible pieces of technology – haven't really fundamentally changed in decades. We should probably expect a database designed and written today to be a better fit for modern application and operational paradigms, in at least some ways.
The interesting question, then, is whether the rest of the engineering behind MongoDB can catch up. I, for one, am optimistic. MongoDB continues to improve rapidly: It's adapted a real storage engine, and Facebook is working on another. MongoDB 3.2, now in RC, significantly improves leader elections. Every day, more experienced engineers turn their eyes on MongoDB, and while they often do discover problems, those problems then tend to get fixed fairly efficiently.
So while MongoDB today may not be a great database, I think there's a good chance that the MongoDB of 5 or 10 years from now truly will be.
Despite all the "NoSQL" hype, MongoDB is structurally and functionally much more similar to a SQL database than it is to most of the more exotic NoSQL databases. In both MongoDB and SQL RDBMSes, the core abstraction is a single server, with a number of tables or collections that support multiple consistent secondary indexes and rich querying. ↩