Ok so the more and more I develop in Mongodb i start to wonder about the need for multiple collections vs having one large collection with indexes (since columns and fields can be different for each document unlike tabular data). If i am trying to develop in the most efficient way possible (meaning less code and reusable code) then can I use one collection for all documents and just index on a field. By having all documents in one collection with indexes then i can reuse all my form processing code and other code since it will all be inserting into the same collection.
For Example:
Lets say i am developing a contact manager and I have two types of contacts "individuals" and "businesses". My original thought was to create a collection called individuals and a second collection called businesses. But that was because im used to developing in sql where yes this would be appropriate since columns would be different for each table. The more i started to think about the flexibility of document dbs the more I started to think, "do I really need two collections for this?" If i just add a field to each document called "contact type" and index on that, do i really need two collections? Since the fields/columns in each document do not have to be the same for all (like in sql) then each document can have their own fields as long as i have a "document type" field and an index on that field.
So then i took that concept and started to think, if i only need one collection for "individuals" and "businesses" then do i even need a separate collection for "Users" or "Contact History" or any other data. In theory couldn't i build the entire solution in once collection and just have a field in each document that specifield the "type" and index on it such as "Users", "Individual Contact", "Business Contacts", "Contact History", etc, and if it is a document related to another document i can index on the "parent key/foreign" Id field...
This would allow me to code the front end dynamically since the form processing code would all be the same (inserting into the same collection). This would save a lot of coding but i want to make sure by using indexes and secondary indexes that the db would still run fast and not cause future problems as the collection grew. As you can imagine, if everything was in one collection there might be hundreds of thousands even millions of documents in this collection as the user base grows but it would have indexes and secondary indexes to optimize performance.
My question is: Is this a common method mongodb developers use? Why or why not? What are the downfalls, if any? If this is a commonly used method, please also give any positives to using this method. thank you.
This is a really big point in Mongo and the answer is a little bit more of an art than science. Having one collection full of gigantic documents is definitely an anti-pattern because it works against many of Mongo's features.
For instance, when retrieving documents, you can only retrieve a whole document out of a collection (not entirely true, but mostly). So if you have huge documents, you're retrieving huge documents each time. Also, having huge documents makes sharding less flexible since only the top level documents are indexed (and hence, sharded) in each collection. You can index values deep into a document, but the index value is associated with the top level document.
At the same time, going purely relational is also an anti-pattern because you've lost a lot of the referential integrity by going to Mongo in the first place. Also, all joins are done in application memory, so each one requires a full round-trip (slow).
So the answer is to do something in between. I'm thinking you'll probably want a collection for individuals and a different collection for businesses in this case. I say this because it seem like businesses have enough meta-data associated that it could bulk up a lot. (Also, I individual-business relationship seems like a many-to-many). However, an individual might have a Name object (with first and last properties). That would be a bad idea to make Name into a separate collection.
Some info from 10gen about schema design: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Schema+Design
EDIT
Also, Mongo has limited support for transactions - in the form of atomic aggregates. When you insert an object into mongo, the entire object is either inserted or not inserted. So you're application domain requires consistency between certain objects, you probably want to keep them in the same document/collection.
For example, consider an application that requires that a User always has a Name object (containing FirstName, LastName, and MiddleInitial). If a User was somehow inserted with no corresponding Name, the data would be considered to be corrupted. In an RDBMS you would wrap a transaction around the operations to insert User and Name. In Mongo, we make sure Name is in the same document (aggregate) as User to achieve the same effect.
Your example is a little less clear, since I don't understand the business cases. One thing that does come to mind is that Mongo has excellent support for inheritance. It might make sense to put all users, individuals, and potentially businesses into the same collection (depending on how the application is modeled). If one individual has many contacts, you probably want individuals to have an array of IDs. If your application requires that you get a quick preview of contacts, you might consider duplicating part of an individual and storing an array of contact objects.
If you're used to RDBMS thinking, you probably think all your data always has to be consistent. The truth is, that's probably not entirely true. This concept of applying atomic aggregates to the domain has been preached heavily by the DDD community recently. When you look at your domain in depth, like your business users do, the consistency boundaries should become distinct.
MongoDB, and NoSQL in general, is about de-normalising data and about reducing joins. It goes against normal SQL thinking.
In your case, I don't see any reason why you would want to have separate collections because it introduces unnecessary complexity and performance overhead. Consider, for example, if you wanted to have a screen that displayed all contacts, in alphabetical order. If you have one single collection for contacts, then its really easy, but if you have two collections it becomes a more complicated proposition.
Where I would have multiple collections is if your application had multiple users storing contacts. I would then have one collection for each user. This makes it so easy to extract out that users contacts.
Related
I am trying to come up with a rough design for an application we're working on. What I'd like to know is, if there is a way to directly map a one to many relation in mongo.
My schema is like this:
There are a bunch of Devices.
Each device is known by it's name/ID uniquely.
Each device, can have multiple interfaces.
These interfaces can be added by a user in the front end at any given
time.
An interface is known uniquely by it's ID, and can be associated with
only one Device.
A device can contain at least an order of 100 interfaces.
I was going through MongoDB documentation wherein they mention things relating to Embedded document vs. multiple collections. By no means am I having a detailed clarity over this as I've just started with Mongo and meteor.
Question is, what could seemingly be a better approach? Having multiple small collections or having one big embedded collection. I know this question is somewhat subjective, I just need some clarity from folks who have more expertise in this field.
Another question is, suppose I go with the embedded model, is there a way to update only a part of the document (specific to the interface alone) so that as and when itf is added, it can be inserted into the same device document?
It depends on the purpose of the application.
Big document
A good example on where you'd want a big embedded collection would be if you are not going to modify (normally) the data but you're going to query them a lot. In my application I use this for storing pre-processed trips with all the information. Therefore when someone wants to consult this trip, all the information is located in a single document. However if your query is based on a value that is embedded in a trip, inside a list this would be very slow. If that's the case I'd recommend creating another collection with a relation between both collections. Also for updating part of a document it would be slow since it would require you to fetch the whole document and then update it.
Small documents with relations
If you plan on modify the data a lot, I'd recommend you to stick to a reference to another collection. With small documents, this will allow you to update any collection quicker. If you want to model a unique relation you may consider using a unique index in mongo. This can be done using: db.members.createIndex( { "user_id": 1 }, { unique: true } ).
Therefore:
Big object: Great for querying data but slow for complex queries.
Small related collections: Great for updating but requires several queries on distinct collections.
So just a quick best practice question here. How do I know when I should create new collections in MongoDB?
I have an app that queries TV show data. Should each show have its own collection, or should they all be store within one collection with relevant data in the same document. Please explain why you chose the approach you did. (I'm still very new to MongoDB. I'm used to MySql.)
The Two Most Popular Approaches to Schema Design in MongoDB
Embed data into documents and store them in a single collection.
Normalize data across multiple collections.
Embedding Data
There are several reasons why MongoDB doesn't support joins across collections, and I won't get into all of them here. But the main reason why we don't need joins is because we can embed relevant data into a single hierarchical JSON document. We can think of it as pre-joining the data before we store it. In the relational database world, this amounts to denormalizing our data. In MongoDB, this is about the most routine thing we can do.
Normalizing Data
Even though MongoDB doesn't support joins, we can still store related data across multiple collections and still get to it all, albeit in a round about way. This requires us to store a reference to a key from one collection inside another collection. It sounds similar to relational databases, but MongoDB doesn't enforce any of key constraints for us like most relational databases do. Enforcing key constraints is left entirely up to us. We're good enough to manage it though, right?
Accessing all related data in this way means we're required to make at least one query for every collection the data is stored across. It's up to each of us to decide if we can live with that.
When to Embed Data
Embed data when that embedded data will be accessed at the same time as the rest of the document. Pre-joining data that is frequently used together reduces the amount of code we have to write to query across multiple collections. It also reduces the number of round trips to the server.
Embed data when that embedded data only pertains to that single document. Like most rules, we need to give this some thought before blindly following it. If we're storing an address for a user, we don't need to create a separate collection to store addresses just because the user might have a roommate with the same address. Remember, we're not normalizing here, so duplicating data to some degree is ok.
Embed data when you need "transaction-like" writes. Prior to v4.0, MongoDB did not support transactions, though it does guarantee that a single document write is atomic. It'll write the document or it won't. Writes across multiple collections could not be made atomic, and update anomalies could occur for how many ever number of scenarios we can imagine. This is no longer the case since v4.0, however it is still more typical to denormalize data to avoid the need for transactions.
When to Normalize Data
Normalize data when data that applies to many documents changes frequently. So here we're talking about "one to many" relationships. If we have a large number of documents that have a city field with the value "New York" and all of a sudden the city of New York decides to change its name to "New-New York", well then we have to update a lot of documents. Got anomalies? In cases like this where we suspect other cities will follow suit and change their name, then we'd be better off creating a cities collection containing a single document for each city.
Normalize data when data grows frequently. When documents grow, they have to be moved on disk. If we're embedding data that frequently grows beyond its allotted space, that document will have to be moved often. Since these documents are bigger each time they're moved, the process only grows more complex and won't get any better over time. By normalizing those embedded parts that grow frequently, we eliminate the need for the entire document to be moved.
Normalize data when the document is expected to grow larger than 16MB. Documents have a 16MB limit in MongoDB. That's just the way things are. We should start breaking them up into multiple collections if we ever approach that limit.
The Most Important Consideration to Schema Design in MongoDB is...
How our applications access and use data. This requires us to think? Uhg! What data is used together? What data is used mostly as read-only? What data is written to frequently? Let your applications data access patterns drive your schema, not the other way around.
The scope you've described is definitely not too much for "one collection". In fact, being able to store everything in a single place is the whole point of a MongoDB collection.
For the most part, you don't want to be thinking about querying across combined tables as you would in SQL. Unlike in SQL, MongoDB lets you avoid thinking in terms of "JOINs"--in fact MongoDB doesn't even support them natively.
See this slideshare:
http://www.slideshare.net/mongodb/migrating-from-rdbms-to-mongodb?related=1
Specifically look at slides 24 onward. Note how a MongoDB schema is meant to replace the multi-table schemas customary to SQL and RDBMS.
In MongoDB a single document holds all information regarding a record. All records are stored in a single collection.
Also see this question:
MongoDB query multiple collections at once
My database has users collection,
each user has multiple documents,
each document has multiple sections
each section has multiple works
Users work with works collection very often (add new work, update works, delete works). So my question is what structure of collections should I make? works collection is 100-200 records per section.
Should I make work collection for all users with user _id or there is best solution?
Depends on what kind of queries you have. The guideline is to arrange documents so that you can fetch all you need in ideally one query.
On the other hand, what you probably want to avoid is to have mongo reallocate documents because there's not enough space for a in-place update. You can do that by preallocating enough space, or extracting that frequently changing part into its own collection.
As you can read in MongoDB docs,
Generally, for "contains" relationships between entities, embedding should be be chosen. Use linking when not using linking would result in duplication of data.
So if each user has only access to his documents, I think you're good. Just keep in mind there's a limitation on size (16MB I think) for documents which you should be careful about, since you're embedding lots of stuff.
I've been looking at the rise of the NoSql movement and the accompanying rise in popularity of document databases like mongodb, ravendb, and others. While there are quite a few things about these that I like, I feel like I'm not understanding something important.
Let's say that you are implementing a store application, and you want to store in the database products, all of which have a single, unique category. In Relational Databases, this would be accomplished by having two tables, a product and a category table, and the product table would have a field (called perhaps "category_id") which would reference the row in the category table holding the correct category entry. This has several benefits, including non-repetition of data.
It also means that if you misspelled the category name, for example, you could update the category table and then it's fixed, since that's the only place that value exists.
In document databases, though, this is not how it works. You completely denormalize, meaning in the "products" document, you would actually have a value holding the actual category string, leading to lots of repetition of data, and errors are much more difficult to correct. Thinking about this more, doesn't it also mean that running queries like "give me all products with this category" can lead to result that do not have integrity.
Of course the way around this is to re-implement the whole "category_id" thing in the document database, but when I get to that point in my thinking, I realize I should just stay with relational databases instead of re-implementing them.
This leads me to believe I'm missing some key point about document databases that leads me down this incorrect path. So I wanted to put it to stack-overflow, what am I missing?
You completely denormalize, meaning in the "products" document, you would actually have a value holding the actual category string, leading to lots of repetition of data [...]
True, denormalizing means storing additional data. It also means less collections (tables in SQL), thus resulting in less relations between pieces of data. Each single document can contain the information that would otherwise come from multiple SQL tables.
Now, if your database is distributed across multiple servers, it's more efficient to query a single server instead of multiple servers. With the denormalized structure of document databases, it's much more likely that you only need to query a single server to get all the data you need. With a SQL database, chances are that your related data is spread across multiple servers, making queries very inefficient.
[...] and errors are much more difficult to correct.
Also true. Most NoSQL solutions don't guarantee things such as referential integrity, which are common to SQL databases. As a result, your application is responsible for maintaining relations between data. However, as the amount of relations in a document database is very small, it's not as hard as it may sound.
One of the advantages of a document database is that it is schema-less. You're completely free to define the contents of a document at all times; you're not tied to a predefined set of tables and columns as you are with a SQL database.
Real-world example
If you're building a CMS on top of a SQL database, you'll either have a separate table for each CMS content type, or a single table with generic columns in which you store all types of content. With separate tables, you'll have a lot of tables. Just think of all the join tables you'll need for things like tags and comments for each content type. With a single generic table, your application is responsible for correctly managing all of the data. Also, the raw data in your database is hard to update and quite meaningless outside of your CMS application.
With a document database, you can store each type of CMS content in a single collection, while maintaining a strongly defined structure within each document. You could also store all tags and comments within the document, making data retrieval very efficient. This efficiency and flexibility comes at a price: your application is more responsible for managing the integrity of the data. On the other hand, the price of scaling out with a document database is much less, compared to a SQL database.
Advice
As you can see, both SQL and NoSQL solutions have advantages and disadvantages. As David already pointed out, each type has its uses. I recommend you to analyze your requirements and create two data models, one for a SQL solution and one for a document database. Then choose the solution that fits best, keeping scalability in mind.
I'd say that the number one thing you're overlooking (at least based on the content of the post) is that document databases are not meant to replace relational databases. The example you give does, in fact, work really well in a relational database. It should probably stay there. Document databases are just another tool to accomplish tasks in another way, they're not suited for every task.
Document databases were made to address the problem that (looking at it the other way around), relational databases aren't the best way to solve every problem. Both designs have their use, neither is inherently better than the other.
Take a look at the Use Cases on the MongoDB website: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Use+Cases
A document db gives a feeling of freedom when you start. You no longer have to write create table and alter table scripts. You simply embed details in the master 'records'.
But after a while you realize that you are locked in a different way. It becomes less easy to combine or aggregate the data in a way that you didn't think was needed when you stored the data. Data mining/business intelligence (searching for the unknown) becomes harder.
That means that it is also harder to check if your app has stored the data in the db in a correct way.
For instance you have two collection with each approximately 10000 'records'. Now you want to know which ids are present in 'table' A that are not present in 'table' B.
Trivial with SQL, a lot harder with MongoDB.
But I like MongoDB !!
OrientDB, for example, supports schema-less, schema-full or mixed mode. In some contexts you need constraints, validation, etc. but you would need the flexibility to add fields without touch the schema. This is a schema mixed mode.
Example:
{
'#rid': 10:3,
'#class': 'Customer',
'#ver': 3,
'name': 'Jay',
'surname': 'Miner',
'invented': [ 'Amiga' ]
}
In this example the fields "name" and "surname" are mandatories (by defining them in the schema), but the field "invented" has been created only for this document. All your app need to don't know about it but you can execute queries against it:
SELECT FROM Customer WHERE invented IS NOT NULL
It will return only the documents with the field "invented".
I'm interested in document-oriented databases, and I'd like to play with MongoDB. So I started a fairly simple project (an issue tracker), but am having hard times thinking in a non-relational way.
My problems:
I have two objects that relate to each other (e.g. issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}} - here I have a user related to the issue). Should I create another document 'user' and reference it in 'issue' document by its id (like in relational databases), or should I leave all the user's data in the subdocument?
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
I'm totally new to document-oriented databases, and right now I'm trying to develop sort of a CMS using node.js and mongodb so I'm facing the same problems as you.
By trial and error I found this rule of thumb: I make a collection for every entity that may be a "subject" for my queries, while embedding the rest inside other objects.
For example, comments in a blog entry can be embedded, because usually they're bound to the entry itself and I can't think about a useful query made globally on all comments. On the other side, tags attached to a post might deserve their own collection, because even if they're bound to the post, you might want to reason globally about all the tags (for example making a list of trending topics).
In my mind this is actually pretty simple. Embedded documents can only be accessed via their master document. If you can envision a need to query an object outside the context of the master document, then don't embed it. Use a ref.
For your example
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
I would make issue and reporter each their own document, and reference the reporter in the issue. You could also reference a list of issues in reporter. This way you won't duplicate reporters in issues, you can query them each separately, you can query reporter by issue, and you can query issues by reporter. If you embed reporter in issue, you can only query the one way, reporter by issue.
If you embed documents, you can update them all in a single query, but you have to repeat the update in each master document. This is another good reason to use reference documents.
The beauty of mongodb and other "NoSQL" product is that there isn't any schema to design. I use MongoDB and I love it, not having to write SQL queries and awful JOIN queries! So to answer your two questions.
1 - If you create multiple documents, you'll need make two calls to the DB. Not saying it's a bad thing but if you can throw everything into one document, why not? I recall when I used to use MySQL, I would create a "blog" table and a "comments" table. Now, I append the comments to the record in the same collection (aka table) and keep building on it.
2 - Yes ...
The schema design in Document-oriented DBs can seems difficult at first, but building my startup with Symfony2 and MongoDB I've found that the 80% of the time is just like with a relational DB.
At first, think it like a normal db:
To start, just create your schema as you would with a relational Db:
Each Entity should have his own Collection, especially if you'll need to paginate the documents in it.
(in Mongo you can somewhat paginate nested document arrays, but the capabilities are limited)
Then just remove overly complicated normalization:
do I need a separate category table? (simply write the category in a column/property as a string or embedded doc)
Can I store comments count directly as an Int in the Author collection? (then update the count with an event, for example in Doctrine ODM)
Embedded documents:
Use embedded documents only for:
clearness (nested documents like: addressInfo, billingInfo in the User collection)
to store tags/categories ( eg: [ name: "Sport", parent: "Hobby", page: "/sport"
] )
to store simple multiple values (for eg. in User collection: list of specialties, list of personal websites)
Don't use them when:
the parent Document will grow too large
when you need to paginate them
when you feel the entity is important enough to deserve his own collection
Duplicate values across collection and precompute counts:
Duplicate some columns/attributes values from a Collection to another if you need to do a query with each values in the where conditions. (remember there aren't joins)
eg: In the Ticket collection put also the author name (not only the ID)
Also if you need a counter (number of tickets opened by user, by category, ecc), precompute them.
Embed references:
When you have a One-to-Many or Many-to-Many reference, use an embedded array with the list of the referenced document ids (see MongoDB DB Ref).
You'll need to use an Event again to remove an id if the referenced document get deleted.
(There is an extension for Doctrine ODM if you use it: Reference Integrity)
This kind of references are directly managed by Doctrine ODM: Reference Many
Its easy to fix errors:
If you find late that you have made a mistake in the schema design, its quite simply to fix it with few lines of Javascript to run directly in the Mongo console.
(stored procedures made easy: no need of complex migration scripts)
Waring: don't use Doctrine ODM Migrations, you'll regret that later.
Redid this answer since the original answer took the relation the wrong way round due to reading incorrectly.
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
As to whether embedding some important information about the user (creator) of the ticket is a wise decision or not depends upon the system specifics.
Are you giving these users the ability to login and report issues they find? If so then it is likely you might want to factor that relation off to a user collection.
On the other hand, if that is not the case then you could easily get away with this schema. The one problem I see here is if you wish to contact the reporter and their job role has changed, that's somewhat awkward; however, that is a real world dilemma, not one for the database.
Since the subdocument represents a single one-to-one relation to a reporter you also should not suffer fragmentation problems mentioned in my original answer.
There is one glaring problem with this schema and that is duplication of changing repeating data (Normalised Form stuff).
Let's take an example. Imagine you hit the real world dilemma I spoke about earlier and a user called Nigel wants his role to reflect his new job position from now on. This means you have to update all rows where Nigel is the reporter and change his role to that new position. This can be a lengthy and resource consuming query for MongoDB.
To contradict myself again, if you were to only have maybe 100 tickets (aka something manageable) per user then the update operation would likely not be too bad and would, in fact, by manageable for the database quite easily; plus due to the lack of movement (hopefully) of the documents this would be a completely in place update.
So whether this should be embedded or not depends heavily upn your querying and documents etc, however, I would say this schema isn't a good idea; specifically due to the duplication of changing data across many root documents. Technically, yes, you could get away with it but I would not try.
I would instead split the two out.
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
Just like the relation style in my original answer, yes and easily.
For example, let's update the role of Nigel to MD (as hinted earlier) and change the ticket status to completed:
db.tickets.update({'reporter.username':'Nigel'},{$set:{'reporter.role':'MD', status: 'completed'}})
So a single document schema does make CRUD easier in this case.
One thing to note, stemming from your English, you cannot use the positional operator to update all subdocuments under a root document. Instead it will update only the first found.
Again hopefully that makes sense and I haven't left anything out. HTH
Original Answer
here I have a user related to the issue). Should I create another document 'user' and reference it in 'issue' document by its id (like in relational databases), or should I leave all the user's data in the subdocument?
This is a considerable question and requires some background knowledge before continuing.
First thing to consider is the size of a issue:
issue = {code:"asdf-11", title:"asdf", reporter:{username:"qwer", role:"manager"}}
Is not very big, and since you no longer need the reporter information (that would be on the root document) it could be smaller, however, issues are never that simple. If you take a look at the MongoDB JIRA for example: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-9548 (as a random page that proves my point) the contents of a "ticket" can actually be quite considerable.
The only way you would gain a true benefit from embedding the tickets would be if you could store ALL user information in a single 16 MB block of contigious sotrage which is the maximum size of a BSON document (as imposed by the mongod currently).
I don't think you would be able to store all tickets under a single user.
Even if you was to shrink the ticket to, maybe, a code, title and a description you could still suffer from the "swiss cheese" problem caused by regular updates and changes to documents in MongoDB, as ever this: http://www.10gen.com/presentations/storage-engine-internals is a good reference for what I mean.
You would typically witness this problem as users add multiple tickets to their root user document. The tickets themselves will change as well but maybe not in a drastic or frequent manner.
You can, of course, remedy this problem a bit by using power of 2 sizes allocation: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/command/collMod/#usePowerOf2Sizes which will do exactly what it says on the tin.
Ok, hypothetically, if you were to only have code and title then yes, you could store the tickets as subdocuments in the root user without too many problems, however, this is something that comes down to specifics that the bounty assignee has not mentioned.
If I have objects (subdocuments) in a document, can I update them all in a single query?
Yes, quite easily. This is one thing that becomes easier with embedding. You could use a query like:
db.users.update({user_id:uid,'tickets.code':'asdf-1'}, {$set:{'tickets.$.title':'Oh NOES'}})
However, to note, you can only update ONE subdocument at a time using the positional operator. As such this means you cannot, in a single atomic operation, update all ticket dates on a single user to 5 days in the future.
As for adding a new ticket, that is quite simple:
db.users.update({user_id:uid},{$push:{tickets:{code:asdf-1,title:"Whoop"}}})
So yes, you can quite simply, depending on your queries, update the entire users data in a single call.
That was quite a long answer so hopefully I haven't missed anything out, hope it helps.
I like MongoDB, but I have to say that I will use it a lot more soberly in my next project.
Specifically, I have not had as much luck with the Embedded Document facility as people promise.
Embedded Document seems to be useful for Composition (see UML Composition), but not for aggregation. Leaf nodes are great, anything in the middle of your object graph should not be an embedded document. It will make searching and validating your data more of a struggle than you'd want.
One thing that is absolutely better in MongoDB is your many-to-X relationships. You can do a many-to-many with only two tables, and it's possible to represent a many-to-one relationship on either table. That is, you can either put 1 key in N rows, or N keys in 1 row, or both. Notably, queries to accomplish set operations (intersection, union, disjoint set, etc) are actually comprehensible by your coworkers. I have never been satisfied with these queries in SQL. I often have to settle for "two other people will understand this".
If you've ever had your data get really big, you know that inserts and updates can be constrained by how much the indexes cost. You need fewer indexes in MongoDB; an index on A-B-C can be used to query for A, A & B, or A & B & C (but not B, C, B & C or A & C). Plus the ability to invert a relationship lets you move some indexes to secondary tables. My data hasn't gotten big enough to try, but I'm hoping that will help.