Ingestion of high volumes of data was approximately 2.1 times faster in Postgres
MongoDB consumed 33% more the disk space
Data inserts took almost 3 times longer in MongoDB
Data selection took more than 2.5 times longer in MongoDB than in Postgres
Now if only I had a baked in solution for a replica set, with hot master failover and command forwarding in PostgreSQL like I get with MongoDB.
Quirky bolt-on solutions, and those requiring a contract with EnterpriseDB or others need not apply.
I really don't mean for this to be as snarky as it sounds... I'd really love these features in PostgreSQL along with PLv8, I'd rather use that than MongoDB... unfortunately having a good in the box solution for MongoDB over PostgreSQL is a bigger breaking point than lack of Joins in my use case.
Failures are just a property of distributed systems, some fail in ways that are better for you, some fail in ways that are worse, but sooner or later they all fail. It's a tradeoff which one you choose.
MongoDB was tested in a replicated setup, PG not, that's a pretty fundamental difference. Loosing acked writes in a master-slave replication with failover would be expected with a sufficiently large replication lag even for PG.
MongoDB is about the last database I'd pick for any given scenario, but I acknowledge that there are people that have a usecase where it might be a good fit because the tradeoffs work out for them.
