Good take on MDB vs AWS' DocumentDB

I know everyone is now looking at Redhat’s play, but many still think that Amazon’s entry is a more serious concern:…

First, it notes that MongoDB is the 5th most popular database. Then it notes that DocumentDB doesn’t even support all of 3.6, just the “most common” features of that 15 month old version. Eventually, AWS says they’ll add things like geospatial indexes and capped collections.

Not surprisingly, MDB’s CTO and founder sees this more a a validation of what Mongo has been doing with people still skeptical of NoSQL databases.

But, this may be the strongest thing that Mongo needs to be telling people:

“DocumentDB is not the same database as MongoDB, so compatibility is a one-way street to what is, essentially, a proprietary DBaaS with initially open-source-compatible coding,” said Doug Henschen, an analyst with Constellation Research in Cupertino, Calif.

To that end, DocumentDB is similar to AWS Aurora, which offers compatibility with MySQL and PostgreSQL.

“Good luck moving an Aurora instance or a new DocumentDB instance back off of AWS and running anything like that mutated instance back on the original source database management system,” Henschen said.

And the article concludes with a preliminary look at the legal issues surrounding MDB’s modifications to the Open Source licensing a while back (which may have delayed AWS’s work, btw).