MongoDB Enterprise Advanced Reviews

We do not use MongoDB extensively. Initially, we wanted to store login information, dumping the entire message into the database. It stores transaction details about the users, but only for login purposes. Essentially, we store information about access and usage.

In the future, we will build some reports for this data.

MongoDB is the best choice for us when we want to store NoSQL-type data.

The clustering is very good. It allows us to have high availability.

The performance is good. 

The user interface is not as friendly as Oracle, which is something that can be improved.

We have been working with MongoDB for a couple of years.

So far, MongoDB has been quite stable.

MongoDB is definitely scalable. By setting up a cluster, we are able to scale well.

At this point, we are only using it for login purposes and only with two or three applications.

We have not used technical support very much because we don't have any issues with it. It has been quite stable and also, we are only using it for a limited purpose at this point. 

We also use Oracle and we have found that if you want to have a DR site, you need to replicate the data from one site to the other. With MongoDB, we set up a cluster on the wide-area network, and we don't have to do any data replication. Instead, it will help you with these things.

With Oracle, the user interface makes it easy to explore the database. With MongoDB, the interface is quite primitive and it is more difficult to look at the data. It is not as user-friendly.

There are a lot of vendor and third-party tools that work on top of Oracle, but this is not so much the case with MongoDB.

I was not personally involved in the installation.

We have an in-house team for deployment and maintenance.

We did not evaluate other similar solutions before implementing MongoDB.

Prior to MongoDB, we focused on relational databases.

This is a good product and I recommend it for anybody who wants to store NoSQL data. It provides a lot of features and the clustering, in particular, is a good one.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for long-term storage. We use it to store all our data. We also use it to support microservices that already have calculated data. We don't use it for any other purpose.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to easily store documentation regarding structures. 

We can easily connect to MongoDB and search without transformation, without joining. If we want to use a simple search it's really fast. 

The initial setup isn't really that complex.

The solution is pretty stable overall.

If we want to perform some joins or some other types of transformation that are more advanced, in that case, we cannot use MongoDB. We need to use another solution.

The solution needs to better support modern aspects of search engines. There is typically a microservice layer and MongoDB doesn't support well within search engines. If you want to create some complex structures, you need something like Elasticsearch, for example.

The pricing is expensive.

MongoDB should better support small and medium companies. There are a lot of clients out there that are interested, however, they need something lighter and less complex and something not so expensive upfront. 

I've been using the solution for the past two or three years.

The stability of the solution is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty good overall.

I've never used technical support. I can't speak to their level of responsiveness or how knowledgeable they are.

We previously mostly used SQL databases. We used Microsoft SQL mostly and we needed some NoSQL databases. That's why we implemented Elasticsearch and MongoDB. We wanted a NoSQL database that we could search, however, was also capable of long-term storage. 

The initial setup is not so complex when we are talking about on-prem solutions. It's an easy initial setup. We are fine with that. 

I was surprised, however, by the lack of support offered during implementation. You are left to your own devices. There isn't much guidance - especially on so complex a transformation.

We have our own agent teams. Mostly we rely on our engineers, not consultants at other companies. We're able to handle everything rather well in-house.

The pricing is quite high and we don't appreciate the solution raising prices so much.

I'm following up with the licensing, however, I don't have the exact figures right now. I mostly advise some companies about that, and usually do not go into detail. What I'm interested in, for example, is when you implement some solution in some company what are the costs for that company in the near future, for example, in one or two years. This is what we are thinking about. 

It's not easy to implement some solutions in some small companies if at the beginning they need to pay some licensing costs upfront. For example, for Mongo DB. It would be easier if the small companies could operate without licensing for some period of time and then only after they grow to a certain size or need they would have to pay some for that usage.

While I may advise clients on MongoDB, I don't have a direct business relationship with the company.

We always use the latest version that is available.

As we implement the solution for clients, we deal with different deployment models. Typically, for banks, for example, the on-premises deployment is used. However, we've looked into the cloud as well and some clients may consider that deployment instead.

A company considering the solution needs to first think about the project and the infrastructure that they need to implement. Every solution is different. I cannot say that I feel some particular way about MongoDB. It always depends on the organizational need. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it offered more upfront support and a lighter solution for smaller organizations. It would be great if they could build an open-source version, for example.

We use it in our virtual environment.

Our software produces a lot of predefined JSON Structures. We save those JSONs in an encrypted form inside MongoDB.

It's simple storage of JSON. We do not perform any database functions.

In our case, it is most important to have redundancy. It supports a replica set and it allows us to use mutual TLS for authentications with the certificates.

The documentation is useful.

We work with the community edition and it would be really nice to have for the database side encryption, but it's not available in the community. It is only available in the enterprise edition.

We use mutual TLS, which means we use the certificate for authentication and connection encryption.

When I want to connect to a node, I need to supply the certificate that MongoDB trusts, even though I use an admin password. This is not useful, and it complicates things.

It would be much more useful if I have an admin user and a password.

I would like it to be more straightforward when connecting to a node.

We have been using MongoDB for the last 12 months.

We are using version 4.4.0.

It's pretty stable. We don't have any complaints.

It's a scalable solution. We haven't had any issues. 

We are in development mode, and not really used by users. We have five people for development.

We can't know for sure if we will continue to use this solution. We are still in the development phase so we have to see when we finish.

I have not contacted technical support. I used the official documentation, which was enough for me.

The initial setup was straightforward. We used Docker, so it was pretty easy.

It didn't take long to deploy.

It's free. It's a community edition, so we do not pay anything.

There are no additional costs.

We didn't really evaluate other solutions. We did not have strict requirements in choosing a database. We just needed to keep JSON files informed when we produce them and MongoDB seems to be fine for us.

I would rate MongoDB a nine out of ten.

It stores historical data with ease. For example, if you are a healthcare member, then you will have multiple records of visits to the doctors. To store such data in Oracle Database, you have to create many records. You might also have duplication problems because your records are going in again and again, because of which the data warehouse and the maintenance cost will be huge. MongoDB is comparatively lightweight. It is a JSON extract. Once you define a schema and extract it, you can push all the relationships in any way you want. It is easier to define and get different types of transactions into MongoDB. It is also easier to set it up as compared to other solutions.

MongoDB is a NoSQL database, which means it is a document DB in which you can store documents that you created in BSON. It is pretty fast in response. It is faster than relational databases because it does not define any primary keys, secondary keys, tertiary keys, and all those kinds of things.

A normal Oracle or database tester will take some time to gear up to MongoDB because the way of writing queries is different in MongoDB. There should be some kind of midway where a person who is coming from an Oracle background can write a query and get a response by using something like a select * statement or other such things. There should be some way for MongoDB to interpret these commands rather than making a person learn MongoDB commands and writing them. I struggled while writing these MongoDB commands. I had not seen such queries before. It was pretty difficult to get them. This is one of the areas where it would help from the improvement standpoint.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

I haven't called them ever. I haven't seen any issues, so I would say it's pretty good.

I don't know, but I have heard from people who procure it that it is much cheaper than Oracle.

It is a good tool. You should give it a try. It has a very good and different perspective of looking at how data can be stored in a database and restored from a database because it is not like a straight query or record. The data is just in files. It does whatever a database should do.

I would rate MongoDB a nine out of ten.

We are using this solution for storage and mapping. We have developed an application for mapping. We source the GeoJSON position for approximately eleven million points.

Our application is made for desktops, and we started using MongoDB for that application.

We have four teams in our laboratory and the other teams are developing their applications to be used with MongoDB.

The primary use of MongoDB is for mapping the application.

The most valuable feature is the geometric information done with GeoJSON. We search the points, and we can perform searches for the data using the RPA for MongoDB. We can ask for points in the geometric shapes or points near other points.

Simplifying the aggregation framework would be an improvement.

Also, the replica system could be improved.

I have been using MongoDB for approximately four years.

We have anywhere from 15 to 20 people using this solution on a daily basis.

This is a stable solution and we are happy with it.

It is possible to scale this solution but it has a problem with the replication.

I have not contacted technical support. We have been able to resolve any issues we have had on our own.

Previously we used MariaDB and we continue to use MariaDB for other purposes. We started using MongoDB to manage non-relational data.

The initial setup was simple and straightforward.

It took a couple of hours.

I am the only one maintaining this solution.

I completed the initial setup and implementation.

I did not use the help of a vendor or integration. I did it on my own.

MongoDB is an open-source solution.

We are a small laboratory and always look for open source solutions or solutions where the licensing is every year. We are prepared to do the troubleshooting ourselves.

The most important part is to evaluate the rest of the ecosystem integrations. When we started, the driver that we used to develop the application was in C++ wasn't relevant. At the start of the project, we had some difficulties because there was no documentation available. There were no examples and no support from the community. 

You have to take into account the languages that you are using. If you are going to develop in the main languages of the solution such as Python, or JavaScript, then you won't have to worry.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have done a variety of things with MongoDB that started with the adoption of this solution at one company. I was involved in setting up the cluster and then the monitoring, alerting, and backup process. Once all of the set up was complete, I was involved in writing some of the components that were responsible for fetching data from MongoDB.

We are now responsible for running the platform, so whoever wants to run MongoDB comes to us and we explain how we can deploy the cluster for their applications. At this point, we build a cluster in the servers under a UNIX account. The number of nodes in the cluster depends on the requirements of the application side.

Some of the use cases we have configured MongoDB for are desk-tooling and a payment card profiling project. We are currently working on a data exchange platform. We also have a couple of use cases in the pipeline for potential MongoDB clients who also need the MongoDB Ops Manager.

The most valuable feature is that we don't need a schema to store the data.

The security is very good. Cybersecurity, authentication, authorization, and server certifications are all valuable features. We can define security rules at the database level or the cluster level to grant or deny access to particular users.

This is a highly available architecture. If you are using a three-node cluster and one of these goes down then either of the secondary nodes will become a priority to eliminate downtime from the application's perspective.

The documentation for MongoDB is not very good and should be improved. Some of the documents are referring to legacy versions. MongoDB 4.2 has been released, but there are training documents and other documentation that still refers to versions 3.6 and 3.4, which is not good. They should definitely update the documentation as new software is released.

Data encryption is possible using third-party tools but they should have their own encryption capability built-in to this solution.

Information about upcoming and recently released features should be made available so that we are aware of the latest features, and how we can manage the issues that will accompany them.

I have been working with MongoDB for the last three years.

We have not had any issues with stability.

We have a support portal where we can log tickets and fix issues. We contact them directly and we can set up a call whenever we need help from them.

For some issues, I would rate technical support a nine out of ten, or a ten out of ten. However, at other times, I would rate them a seven out of ten. It depends on who is dealing with the ticket. There are times where they respond to tickets very quickly and things get resolved in a timely manner. At other times, it takes ages to resolve the problem.

We did not use a different NoSQL solution prior to MongoDB.

We continue to use Microsoft SQL Server for other types of database implementations that require SQL, which I also have expertise in.

The initial setup is not very complex. We used the MongoDB resources to understand how to set it up on a Linux server, and after that, we prepared our own document that explains how to install it. Now it is quite straightforward, although if you are going with a more granular level of configuration, such as enabling other parameters on the cluster, then it would be different. I would say that set up would be a little more difficult, but not much. It's very simple using the MongoDB Ops Manager.

We offer three types of services on the MongoDB platform. First is the ODS service, second is the MongoDB SQL, and third is MongoDB standalone. For standalone, we are providing services on the tenant. With respect to shared services, we have the infrastructure but we have to set up their database on the shared servers. This will be useful for some use cases. The standalone configuration takes approximately 15 to 20 days to set up. It is sometimes less but it takes the time to create and configure the UNIX account because we have a third-party dependency for that.

The ODS solution will be better for enterprise data such as those involving payments, accounts, and customers. 

MongoDB is a solution that I can recommend because we have realized good benefits from it. We are in the process of setting up the ODS project, which should help the organization from a cost perspective. Then we will be moving the mainframe data to ODS, and we can use the MongoDB API to fetch data from there and provide real-time solutions to the customer.

At this time, I cannot judge the benefit of MongoDB in isolation, but as time goes on, perhaps by the end of the year, I will have a better idea.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I have used the product to store and manage data operations.

MongoDB is simpler to learn and implement than traditional SQL solutions like MySQL.

The product's data consistency could be more efficient than traditional SQLs.

I have used MongoDB for a year while working on a project. I was using the latest version.

MongoDB was stable and much faster than traditional SQL.

There were five MongoDB users in our organization working in different teams.

I was working with MySQL before. I decided to use MongoDB rather than other products to learn something new. It is easier to learn and implement than other databases.

The learning process for initial setup is easier compared to traditional SQL. Someone without prior experience working with it can learn the process quickly.

MongoDB is an open-source product. We don't have to pay for the licenses.

I advise others to evaluate a lot of other databases. MongoDB worked fine for my project. However, I would have selected a product besides MongoDB to improve my skills and learn something new.

I rate it a six out of ten.

We are using MongoDB for unstructured databases.

The most valuable features of MongoDB are we have a lot of documentation and SQL-based applications that run on it.

MongoDB could improve by not having so many updates and different versions.

I have been using MongoDB for approximately two years.

MongoDB is stable, but there are always a lot of patches and upgrades every now and then.

MongoDB can scale but you will need to pay for the upgraded solution.

I have not contacted the technical support of MongoDB.

The initial setup of MongoDB is simple and the implementation took approximately one day.

We did the implementation in-house.

MongoDB is a free solution. We wanted to have high availability and the subscription cost was quite expensive because the basic one is free and then when you want to have some other replications or other features you will need to pay money. Overall the solution is expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate MongoDB a six out of ten.