Giving up on MongoDB
Part of quitting Twitter necessitate rebuilding Grumpy Gamer. The Thimbleweed Park dev blog was based on the Grumpy Gamer blog code, but I'd made a lot of improvements that I loathed losing, but even the Thimbleweed Park blog code was starting to feel old and worn.
It was time to start over, and by start over, I mean completely start over. I crave change. When I find myself in a rut, or lacking motivation, I strive to change as much as I can to spark my imagination.
Writing a new blogging platform from the ground up (again) was what I needed. It's not rocket science, which is exactly what I needed.
My first decision was what to do about the database. The old-old Grumpy Gamer blog used MySQL, but when I rebuilt that into the old Grumpy Gamer blog I became fascinated with MongoDB. I'd worked a lot in a structured database, and the unstructured nature of MongoDB was enticing. Need a new data column? Just write to one.
MySQL was feeling very heavy, MongoDB felt light and fast.
Three years later, I am back to MySQL and I can arbute that to two things:
1) The lack of a web based tool to quickly manage and query the DB. There are web based tools, but none of them (that I found) can display your data in anything that resembles a table to quick scanning and editing. Any time I needed to "massage" the DB outside the blogging admin tools, I dreaded it.
After a few years with MongoDB, I'm also realizing that I was incorrect in one of my initial assumptions: MongoDB is no faster than MongoDB and the footprint on the server is about the same.
I'm sure MongoDB is better for certain tasks, and MySQL for others, but it largely comes down to what you know and what your comfortable with. For me, that was SQL.
P.S. I don't like that MySQL is owned by Oracle, but I'm not sure I want to make the jump into PostgreSQL. Maybe the next time I'm feeling bored and unmotivated.
Please include the actual timestamp of comments, at least as data.
An open source alternative to PostgreSQL is FirebirdSQL. Small footprint, plus the database data live in one single file.
Or you can make the jump to Postgres. I totally recommend it. Basic stuff is the same really, and once you get into advanced stuff you'll see Postgres is just at a different level.
The full timestamp is in the DB, but I see no reason to display it. I quite like relative dates.
In one year they all say 1y, 1y, 1y, 1y although there may be weeks in between.
Relative dates are OK if they are here ADDITIONALLY. If you add the timestamp just as an HTML attribute it would be enough so I can display them however I want.
Zak Phoenix McKracken
Otherwise, go for the sql way of life!