> Why are we still talking about this? It's not global write lock any more, okay? Stating previous inefficiencies doesn't bring much value to the
It's now a db-level lock, which is an improvement but not optimal. And its locking system in general isn't as sophisticated as, say, a recent version of Postgres, MSSQL, or Oracle.
Neither is its query planner, where using an $or can cause it to scan all the documents in a collection despite the fact that you should technically be hitting indexed fields.
> ... despite the fact that you should technically be hitting indexed fields.
Never had that experience - could you elaborate? Indexes in MongoDB are a bit different from SQL indexes, so if you are comparing to that, you are in for a few surprises. :)
I don't think so. It gives me the impression that 10gen (MongoDb Inc.) has made a mistake how to present "handling MongoDb over 100GB".
> example: global write lock up to release 2.2
Why are we still talking about this? It's not global write lock any more, okay? Stating previous inefficiencies doesn't bring much value to the table.
> At this point it was inevitable to see MongoDB as a popular, yet poor representative of it’s species.
Show me the real arguments! Show me the real arguments!