The big advantage of ArangoDB with respect to memory/disk
usage is that despite the Schema-less-ness, the database
automatically recognises common "shapes" of the documents
in a collection and thus usually does not have to store all
attribute names many times. In addition, the possibility
of transactions makes it less necessary to keep many old
revisions of documents, in comparison to for example
MongoDB.
Comments
I like that they're sufficiently ignorant of MongoDB's implementation to misattribute the primary cause of excessive space usage.
Gives me confidence trust them with my data.
The big advantage of ArangoDB with respect to memory/disk usage is that despite the Schema-less-ness, the database automatically recognises common "shapes" of the documents in a collection and thus usually does not have to store all attribute names many times. In addition, the possibility of transactions makes it less necessary to keep many old revisions of documents, in comparison to for example MongoDB.
I'd be more interested in a document store that was historical and didn't mutate.
Failing that, I'll just keep using RethinkDB for this sort of thing.
What do you think is the primary cause of excessive space usage in MongoDB?
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/storage/#faq-disk-size
Well known and understood. Even well-documented by 10gen themselves, nothing to do with the bling you added to Arango.