MongoDB vs Sequel Pro: What are the differences?
What is MongoDB? The database for giant ideas. MongoDB stores data in JSON-like documents that can vary in structure, offering a dynamic, flexible schema. MongoDB was also designed for high availability and scalability, with built-in replication and auto-sharding.
What is Sequel Pro? MySQL database management for Mac OS X. Sequel Pro is a fast, easy-to-use Mac database management application for working with MySQL databases.
MongoDB and Sequel Pro are primarily classified as "Databases" and "Database" tools respectively.
"Document-oriented storage" is the top reason why over 788 developers like MongoDB, while over 21 developers mention "Free" as the leading cause for choosing Sequel Pro.
MongoDB and Sequel Pro are both open source tools. It seems that MongoDB with 16.3K GitHub stars and 4.1K forks on GitHub has more adoption than Sequel Pro with 6.73K GitHub stars and 591 GitHub forks.
Uber Technologies, Lyft, and Codecademy are some of the popular companies that use MongoDB, whereas Sequel Pro is used by Movielala, Algorithmia, and Punchh. MongoDB has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2189 company stacks & 2218 developers stacks; compared to Sequel Pro, which is listed in 46 company stacks and 23 developer stacks.
I need urgent advice from you all! I am making a web-based food ordering platform which includes 3 different ordering methods (Dine-in using QR code scanning + Take away + Home Delivery) and a table reservation system. We are using React for the front-end, and I need your advice if I should use NestJS or ExpressJS for the backend. And regarding the database, which database should I use, MongoDB or PostgreSQL? Which combination will be better? PS. We want to follow the microservice architecture as scalability, reliability, and usability are the most important Non Functional requirements. Expert advice is needed, please. A load of thanks in advance. Kind Regards, Miqdad
I can't speak for the NestJS vs ExpressJS discussion, but I can given a viewpoint on databases.
The main thing to consider around database choice, is what "shape" the data will be in, and the kind of read/write patterns you expect of that data. The blog example shows up so much for DBMS like MongoDB, because it showcases what NoSQL / document storage is very scalable and performant in: mostly isolated documents with a few views / ways to order them and filter them. In your case, I can imagine a number of "relations" already, which suggest a more traditional SQL solution would work well: You have restaurants, they have maybe a few menus (regular, gluten-free etc), with menu items in, which have different prices over time (25% discount on christmas food just after christmas, 50% off pizzas on wednesdays). Then there's a whole different set of "relations" for people ordering, like showing them past orders, which need to refer to the restaurant etc, and credit card transaction information for refunds etc. That to me suggests PostgreSQL, which will scale quite well if you database design is okay.
PostgreSQL also offers you some extensions, which are just amazing for your use-case. https://postgis.net/ for example will let you query for restaurants based on location, without the big cost that comes from constantly using something like Google Maps API to work out which restaurants are near to someone ordering. Partitioning and window functions will be great for your own use internally too, like answering questions of "What types of takeways perform the best for us, Italian, Mexican?" or in combination with PostGIS, answering questions like "What kind of takeways do we need to market to, to improve our selection?".
While these things can all be implemented in MongoDB, you tend to lose some of the convenience of ACID or have to deal with things like eventual consistency, which requires more thinking on the part of your engineers. PostgreSQL offers decent (if more complex) scalablity and redundancy solutions, and is honestly very well proven and plenty of documentation exists on optimising queries.
Hello, i build microservice systems using Angular And Spring (Java) so i can't help with with ur back end choice, BUT, i definitely advice you to use a Nosql database, thus MongoDB of course or even Cassandra if your looking for extreme scalability with zero point of failure. Anyway, Nosql if much more faster then Sql (in your case Postresql DB). All you wanna do with sql can also be done by nosql (not the opposite of course).I also advice you to use docker containers + kubernetes to orchestrate them, if you need scalability and replication, that way your app can support auto scalability (in case ur users number goes high). Best of luck
Hello, I am developing a new project with an internal chat between users. Also, there are complex relationships between the other project entities but I wolud like to build something scalable and fast and right now I am designing the data model. What kind of database would you recommend me to manage all application data? relational like MySQL, no relational like MongoDB or a mixed one? Thank you
If you are trying with "complex relationships", give a chance to learn ArangoDB and Graph databases. Its database structures allow doing this with faster and simpler queries. The database is not as strict as others and allows arbitrary data. The data model is really like a neural network and you will never need foreign keys tables anymore. In Udemy there is a free course about it to get started.
MongoDB supports horizontal scaling through Sharding , distributing data across several machines and facilitating high throughput operations with large sets of data. ... Sharding allows you to add additional instances to increase capacity when required
The most important question is where are you planning to host? On-premise, or in the cloud.
Particularly if you are planning to host in either AWS or Azure, then your first point of call should be the PaaS (Platform as a Service) databases supplied by these vendors, as you will find yourself requiring a lot less effort to support them, much easier Disaster Recovery options, and also, depending on how PAYG the database is that you use, potentially also much cheaper costs than having a dedicated database server.
Your question regards 'Relational or not' is obviously key, and you need to consider both your required data structure, as well as the ACID requirements of your application model, as well as the non-functional requirements in terms of scalability, resilience, whether you want security authorisation at the highest application tier, or right down to 'row' level in the database, etc. - however please don't fall into the trap of considering 'NoSQL' as being single category. MongoDB, with its document-store type solution is a very different model to key-value-pair stores (like AWS DynamoDB), or column stores (like AWS RedShift) or for more complex data relationships, Entity Graph Stores (like AWS Neptune), to stores designed for tokenisation and text search (ElasticSearch) etc.
Also critical in all this is how many items you believe you need to index by. RDBMS/SQL stores are great for having as many indexes as you want, other than the slow-down in write speed, whereas databases like Amazon DynamoDB provide blisteringly fast read/write performance, but are very limited on key indexing capabilities.
It feels like you have most experience with SQL/RDBMS technologies, so for the simplest learning curve, and if your application fits it, then I'd personally start by looking at AWS Aurora https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/ .
FIrstly, it may help if you explain what you mean by "complex relationships between project entities". Secondly, you can build a fast and scalable solution using either. With that said however, the data sounds relational so I would recommend MySQL.
I think, Its depend of your project type and your skills. MySQL is good and simple for maintenance but MongoDB need more skills and knowledge. If you work on little project, use MySQL. For your project type, MySQL is enough after you can migrate with PostgreSQL
I am going to work on a real estate project and have to decide on a database. Now, SQL databases can be very efficient if appropriately designed. More relations between the data and less redundancy. But with a #NoSQL database, the development time is reduced, and it is easy to query. Since this is my first time working on the real estate domain, I would like to pick a database that would be efficient in the long run.
I recommend PostgreSQL as it’s the most powerful out of the 3 databases you mentioned. It supports JSON objects so you can mimic the MongoDB functionality, but I would also argue that SQL is actually quite powerful and in many cases significantly easier to work with than with NoSQL databases.
Stay away from foreign keys, keep it fast and simple. Define your data structures well in advance. Try to model your data structures based on your system’s vision; based on where it’s going and not based solely on what you currently need it to do. This will help you avoid drastic changes to your database after your system is launched. Populate the database with fake data and run tests. PostgreSQL allows you to create Views from multiple tables. Try to create those views and make sure you can easily create useful views from multiple tables. Run an Explain on those view queries to make sure you created your indexes correctly. Make sure it’s fast!
Any of those three databases are going to be efficient, scalable, and reliable in the long term if you configure and use them correctly. They all also have solid hosting solutions.
All things being equal, I would agree with other posters that Postgres is my preference among the three, but there are caveats.
MongoDB and MySQL have better support for mutli-region replication in your big three cloud environments. Azure recently bought Citus Data, which was a best-in-class Postgres replication solution, so they might be the only one I trust to provide cross-region replication at the moment.
If you have a single region deployment and are on AWS, I can't recommend Aurora Postgres highly enough. It's a very good implementation and extremely performant.
That really depends of where do you see you application in the long run. On any application, any of those choices are excellent. You could argue about good support on JSON binaries, but even MySQL has an excellent support for that on the latest versions.
On the long run, when your application gets hundreds of thousands of requests per second, you might start thinking about how many inputs you will have in the database compared to the outputs. PostgresSQL it’s excellent at giving you outputs, but table corruption can happen when you start receiving this massive number of inputs (Which was the reason Uber switched from Postgres to MySQL)
On our OPS Platform at CTO.ai , we decided to use Postgres, because we need a reliable and agile way to send the output to our users, so that was out best choice in the long run for our product.
I'll second another piece of advice. Postgresql's JSON columns are a dream when it comes to productivity and I use them frequently with our Rails application. In these cases, no migration is required to change schema. We store payloads with dozens or hundreds of keys and performance has not been an issue. We also have a lot of relational tables, so the joins we get with SQL are very important to us and hard to replicate with a NoQL solution.
At Pushnami we were looking at several alternative databases that would support following architectural requirements: - very quick prototyping for an unknown domain - ability to support large amounts of data - native ability to replicate and fail over - full stack approach for Node.js development After careful consideration MongoDB came on top, and 3 years later we are still very happy with that decision. Currently we keep almost 2TB of data in our cluster, and start thinking about sharding.
After using couchbase for over 4 years, we migrated to MongoDB and that was the best decision ever! I'm very disappointed with Couchbase's technical performance. Even though we received enterprise support and were a listed Couchbase Partner, the experience was horrible. With every contact, the sales team was trying to get me on a $7k+ license for access to features all other open source NoSQL databases get for free.
Here's why you should not use Couchbase
Full-text search Queries The full-text search often returns a different number of results if you run the same query multiple types
N1QL queries Configuring the indexes correctly is next to impossible. It's poorly documented and nobody seems to know what to do, even the Couchbase support engineers have no clue what they are doing.
Community support I posted several problems on the forum and I never once received a useful answer
Enterprise support It's very expensive. $7k+. The team constantly tried to get me to buy even though the community edition wasn't working great
Autonomous Operator It's actually just a poorly configured Kubernetes role that no matter what I did, I couldn't get it to work. The support team was useless. Same lack of documentation. If you do get it to work, you need 6 servers at least to meet their minimum requirements.
Couchbase cloud Typical for Couchbase, the user experience is awful and I could never get it to work.
The minimum requirements in production are 6 servers. On AWS the calculated monthly cost would be
~$600. We achieved better performance using a
$16 MongoDB instance on the Mongo Atlas Cloud
writing queries is a nightmare While N1QL is similar to SQL and it's easier to write because of the familiarity, that isn't entirely true. The "smart index" that Couchbase advertises is not smart at all. Creating an index with 5 fields, and only using 4 of them won't result in Couchbase using the same index, so you have to create a new one.
The UI that comes with every database deployment is full of bugs, barely functional and the developer experience is poor. When I asked Couchbase about it, they basically said they don't care because
real developers use SQL directly from code
Consumes too much RAM
Couchbase is shipped with a smaller Memcached instance to handle the in-memory cache. Memcached ends up using
8 GB of RAM for 5000 documents! I'm not kidding! We had less than 5000 docs on a Couchbase instance and less than 20 indexes and RAM consumption was always over 8 GB
Memory allocations are useless I asked the Couchbase team a question: If a bucket has 1 GB allocated, what happens when I have more than 1GB stored? Does it overflow? Does it cache somewhere? Do I get an error? I always received the same answer: If you buy the Couchbase enterprise then we can guide you.
We actually use both Mongo and SQL databases in production. Mongo excels in both speed and developer friendliness when it comes to geospatial data and queries on the geospatial data, but we also like ACID compliance hence most of our other data (except on-site logs) are stored in a SQL Database (MariaDB for now)
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is MongoDB?
What is Sequel Pro?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Used MongoDB as primary database. It holds trip data of NYC taxis for the year 2013. It is a huge dataset and it's primary feature is geo coordinates with pickup and drop off locations. Also used MongoDB's map reduce to process this large dataset for aggregation. This aggregated result was then used to show visualizations.
MongoDB fills our more traditional database needs. We knew we wanted Trello to be blisteringly fast. One of the coolest and most performance-obsessed teams we know is our next-door neighbor and sister company StackExchange. Talking to their dev lead David at lunch one day, I learned that even though they use SQL Server for data storage, they actually primarily store a lot of their data in a denormalized format for performance, and normalize only when they need to.
Nearly all of our backend storage is on MongoDB. This has also worked out pretty well. It's enabled us to scale up faster/easier than if we had rolled our own solution on top of PostgreSQL (which we were using previously). There have been a few roadbumps along the way, but the team at 10gen has been a big help with thing.
We are testing out MongoDB at the moment. Currently we are only using a small EC2 setup for a delayed job queue backed by
agenda. If it works out well we might look to see where it could become a primary document storage engine for us.