Is mongodb fit for sites like stackoverflow? [closed]

Question

is mongodb appropriate for sites like stackoverflow?

Answer 1

Put simply: Yes, it could be.

Let's break down the various pages/features and see how they could be stored/reproduced in MongoDB.

The whole information in this page could be stored in a single document under the collection questions. This could include "sub-documents" for each answer to keep the retrieval of this page fast.

Edit: as @beagleguy pointed out, you could hit the document size limit of 4MB quite quickly this way, so it would be better to store answers in separate documents and link them to the question by storing the ObjectIDs in an array.

The votes could be stored in a separate collection, with simple links to the question and to the user who voted. A db.eval() call could be executed to increment/decrement the vote count directly in the document when a vote is added (though it blocks so wouldn't be very performant), or a MapReduce call could be made regularly do offset that work. It could work the same way for favourites.

Things like the "viewed" numbers, logging user's access times, etc. would generally be handled using a modifier operation to increment a counter. Since v1.3 there is a new "Find and Modify" command which can issue an update command when retrieving the document, saving you an extra call.

Any sort of statistical data (such as reputation, badges, unique tags) could be collected using MapReduce and pushed to specific collections. Things like notifications could be pushed to another collection acting as a job queue, with a number of workers listening for new items in the queue (think badge notifications, new answers since user's last access time, etc).

The Questions page and it's filters could all be handled with capped-collections rather than querying for that data immediately.

Ultimately, YMMV. As with all tools, there are advantages and costs. There are some SO features which would take a lot of work in an RDBMS but could be handled quite simply in Mongo, and vice-versa.

I think the main advantage of Mongo over RDBMSs is the schema-less approach and replication. Changing the schema regularly in a "live" RDMBS-based app can be painful, even impossible if it's heavily used with large amounts of data - those types of ops can lock the tables for far too long. In Mongo, adding new fields is trivial since you may not need to add them to every document. If you do its a relatively quick operation to run a map/reduce to update documents.

As for replication, Mongo has the advantage that the DB doesn't need to be paused to take a snapshot for slaves. Many RDBMSs can't set up replication without this approach, which on large DBs can take the master down for a long time (I'm looking at you, MySQL!). This can be a blessing for StackOverflow-type sites, where you need to scale over time - no taking the master down every time you need to add a node.