I do understand that second degree, but I don't think the author is a fanboy...
At work, we're also Mongodb users. If tomorrow we try to benchmark against Cassandra, performance will probably be the selling point. I don't think it's absurd to compare mongodb and rethinkdb, they're very similar dbs.
As for the benchmark, I agree it doesn't explore every facet of both databases and focus on performance... That's what benchmarks do.
The intent of the author may have been to challenge his existing choice (mongodb) which is a good thing. The (corrected) results may lead to: expect no performance gain if we migrate to RethinkDB... What's wrong with that?
Comments
I do understand that second degree, but I don't think the author is a fanboy...
At work, we're also Mongodb users. If tomorrow we try to benchmark against Cassandra, performance will probably be the selling point. I don't think it's absurd to compare mongodb and rethinkdb, they're very similar dbs.
As for the benchmark, I agree it doesn't explore every facet of both databases and focus on performance... That's what benchmarks do.
The intent of the author may have been to challenge his existing choice (mongodb) which is a good thing. The (corrected) results may lead to: expect no performance gain if we migrate to RethinkDB... What's wrong with that?
Well, OK. I am not calling the author a fanboy, and i'll agree they probably aren't.
There are at least 3 things here which invalidate this post because they make the numbers uncomparable:
1. Is the hardware adequate to run the tests, or does it favor one database?
2. Are both databases tuned to the use case?
3. Running only one type of action at a time is meaningless. Contention between reads and writes is what normally drives performance stats.
The title of the post is "RethinkDB reviewed by a MongoDB fan"