Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been hearing things about NoSQL and that it may eventually become the replacement for SQL DB storage methods due to the fact that DB interaction is often a bottle neck for speed on the web.
So I just have a few questions:
What exactly is it?
How does it work?
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
There is no such thing as NoSQL!
NoSQL is a buzzword.
For decades, when people were talking about databases, they meant relational databases. And when people were talking about relational databases, they meant those you control with Edgar F. Codd's Structured Query Language. Storing data in some other way? Madness! Anything else is just flatfiles.
But in the past few years, people started to question this dogma. People wondered if tables with rows and columns are really the only way to represent data. People started thinking and coding, and came up with many new concepts how data could be organized. And they started to create new database systems designed for these new ways of working with data.
The philosophies of all these databases were different. But one thing all these databases had in common, was that the Structured Query Language was no longer a good fit for using them. So each database replaced SQL with their own query languages. And so the term NoSQL was born, as a label for all database technologies which defy the classic relational database model.
So what do NoSQL databases have in common?
Actually, not much.
You often hear phrases like:
NoSQL is scalable!
NoSQL is for BigData!
NoSQL violates ACID!
NoSQL is a glorified key/value store!
Is that true? Well, some of these statements might be true for some databases commonly called NoSQL, but every single one is also false for at least one other. Actually, the only thing NoSQL databases have in common, is that they are databases which do not use SQL. That's it. The only thing that defines them is what sets them apart from each other.
So what sets NoSQL databases apart?
So we made clear that all those databases commonly referred to as NoSQL are too different to evaluate them together. Each of them needs to be evaluated separately to decide if they are a good fit to solve a specific problem. But where do we begin? Thankfully, NoSQL databases can be grouped into certain categories, which are suitable for different use-cases:
Document-oriented
Examples: MongoDB, CouchDB
Strengths: Heterogenous data, working object-oriented, agile development
Their advantage is that they do not require a consistent data structure. They are useful when your requirements and thus your database layout changes constantly, or when you are dealing with datasets which belong together but still look very differently. When you have a lot of tables with two columns called "key" and "value", then these might be worth looking into.
Graph databases
Examples: Neo4j, GiraffeDB.
Strengths: Data Mining
While most NoSQL databases abandon the concept of managing data relations, these databases embrace it even more than those so-called relational databases.
Their focus is at defining data by its relation to other data. When you have a lot of tables with primary keys which are the primary keys of two other tables (and maybe some data describing the relation between them), then these might be something for you.
Key-Value Stores
Examples: Redis, Cassandra, MemcacheDB
Strengths: Fast lookup of values by known keys
They are very simplistic, but that makes them fast and easy to use. When you have no need for stored procedures, constraints, triggers and all those advanced database features and you just want fast storage and retrieval of your data, then those are for you.
Unfortunately they assume that you know exactly what you are looking for. You need the profile of User157641? No problem, will only take microseconds. But what when you want the names of all users who are aged between 16 and 24, have "waffles" as their favorite food and logged in in the last 24 hours? Tough luck. When you don't have a definite and unique key for a specific result, you can't get it out of your K-V store that easily.
Is SQL obsolete?
Some NoSQL proponents claim that their favorite NoSQL database is the new way of doing things, and SQL is a thing of the past.
Are they right?
No, of course they aren't. While there are problems SQL isn't suitable for, it still got its strengths. Lots of data models are simply best represented as a collection of tables which reference each other. Especially because most database programmers were trained for decades to think of data in a relational way, and trying to press this mindset onto a new technology which wasn't made for it rarely ends well.
NoSQL databases aren't a replacement for SQL - they are an alternative.
Most software ecosystems around the different NoSQL databases aren't as mature yet. While there are advances, you still haven't got supplemental tools which are as mature and powerful as those available for popular SQL databases.
Also, there is much more know-how for SQL around. Generations of computer scientists have spent decades of their careers into research focusing on relational databases, and it shows: The literature written about SQL databases and relational data modelling, both practical and theoretical, could fill multiple libraries full of books. How to build a relational database for your data is a topic so well-researched it's hard to find a corner case where there isn't a generally accepted by-the-book best practice.
Most NoSQL databases, on the other hand, are still in their infancy. We are still figuring out the best way to use them.
What exactly is it?
On one hand, a specific system, but it has also become a generic word for a variety of new data storage backends that do not follow the relational DB model.
How does it work?
Each of the systems labelled with the generic name works differently, but the basic idea is to offer better scalability and performance by using DB models that don't support all the functionality of a generic RDBMS, but still enough functionality to be useful. In a way it's like MySQL, which at one time lacked support for transactions but, exactly because of that, managed to outperform other DB systems. If you could write your app in a way that didn't require transactions, it was great.
Why would it be better than using a SQL Database? And how much better is it?
It would be better when your site needs to scale so massively that the best RDBMS running on the best hardware you can afford and optimized as much as possible simply can't keep up with the load. How much better it is depends on the specific use case (lots of update activity combined with lots of joins is very hard on "traditional" RDBMSs) - could well be a factor of 1000 in extreme cases.
Is the technology too new to start implementing yet or is it worth taking a look into?
Depends mainly on what you're trying to achieve. It's certainly mature enough to use. But few applications really need to scale that massively. For most, a traditional RDBMS is sufficient. However, with internet usage becoming more ubiquitous all the time, it's quite likely that applications that do will become more common (though probably not dominant).
Since someone said that my previous post was off-topic, I'll try to compensate :-) NoSQL is not, and never was, intended to be a replacement for more mainstream SQL databases, but a couple of words are in order to get things in the right perspective.
At the very heart of the NoSQL philosophy lies the consideration that, possibly for commercial and portability reasons, SQL engines tend to disregard the tremendous power of the UNIX operating system and its derivatives.
With a filesystem-based database, you can take immediate advantage of the ever-increasing capabilities and power of the underlying operating system, which have been steadily increasing for many years now in accordance with Moore's law. With this approach, many operating-system commands become automatically also "database operators" (think of "ls" "sort", "find" and the other countless UNIX shell utilities).
With this in mind, and a bit of creativity, you can indeed devise a filesystem-based database that is able to overcome the limitations of many common SQL engines, at least for specific usage patterns, which is the whole point behind NoSQL's philosophy, the way I see it.
I run hundreds of web sites and they all use NoSQL to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, they do not host huge amounts of data, but even if some of them did I could probably think of a creative use of NoSQL and the filesystem to overcome any bottlenecks. Something that would likely be more difficult with traditional SQL "jails". I urge you to google for "unix", "manis" and "shaffer" to understand what I mean.
If I recall correctly, it refers to types of databases that don't necessarily follow the relational form. Document databases come to mind, databases without a specific structure, and which don't use SQL as a specific query language.
It's generally better suited to web applications that rely on performance of the database, and don't need more advanced features of Relation Database Engines. For example, a Key->Value store providing a simple query by id interface might be 10-100x faster than the corresponding SQL server implementation, with a lower developer maintenance cost.
One example is this paper for an OLTP Tuple Store, which sacrificed transactions for single threaded processing (no concurrency problem because no concurrency allowed), and kept all data in memory; achieving 10-100x better performance as compared to a similar RDBMS driven system. Basically, it's moving away from the 'One Size Fits All' view of SQL and database systems.
In practice, NoSQL is a database system which supports fast access to large binary objects (docs, jpgs etc) using a key based access strategy. This is a departure from the traditional SQL access which is only good enough for alphanumeric values. Not only the internal storage and access strategy but also the syntax and limitations on the display format restricts the traditional SQL. BLOB implementations of traditional relational databases too suffer from these restrictions.
Behind the scene it is an indirect admission of the failure of the SQL model to support any form of OLTP or support for new dataformats. "Support" means not just store but full access capabilities - programmatic and querywise using the standard model.
Relational enthusiasts were quick to modify the defnition of NoSQL from Not-SQL to Not-Only-SQL to keep SQL still in the picture! This is not good especially when we see that most Java programs today resort to ORM mapping of the underlying relational model. A new concept must have a clearcut definition. Else it will end up like SOA.
The basis of the NoSQL systems lies in the random key - value pair. But this is not new. Traditional database systems like IMS and IDMS did support hashed ramdom keys (without making use of any index) and they still do. In fact IDMS already has a keyword NONSQL where they support SQL access to their older network database which they termed as NONSQL.
It's like Jacuzzi: both a brand and a generic name. It's not just a specific technology, but rather a specific type of technology, in this case referring to large-scale (often sparse) "databases" like Google's BigTable or CouchDB.
NoSQL the actual program appears to be a relational database implemented in awk using flat files on the backend. Though they profess, "NoSQL essentially has no arbitrary limits, and can work where other products can't. For example there is no limit on data field size, the number of columns, or file size" , I don't think it is the large scale database of the future.
As Joel says, massively scalable databases like BigTable or HBase, are much more interesting. GQL is the query language associated with BigTable and App Engine. It's largely SQL tweaked to avoid features Google considers bottle-necks (like joins). However, I haven't heard this referred to as "NoSQL" before.
NoSQL is a database system which doesn't use string based SQL queries to fetch data.
Instead you build queries using an API they will provide, for example Amazon DynamoDB is a good example of a NoSQL database.
NoSQL databases are better for large applications where scalability is important.
Does NoSQL mean non-relational database?
Yes, NoSQL is different from RDBMS and OLAP. It uses looser consistency models than traditional relational databases.
Consistency models are used in distributed systems like distributed shared memory systems or distributed data store.
How it works internally?
NoSQL database systems are often highly optimized for retrieval and appending operations and often offer little functionality beyond record storage (e.g. key-value stores). The reduced run-time flexibility compared to full SQL systems is compensated by marked gains in scalability and performance for certain data models.
It can work on Structured and Unstructured Data. It uses Collections instead of Tables
How do you query such "database"?
Watch SQL vs NoSQL: Battle of the Backends; it explains it all.
As part of my university curriculum I ended up with a real project which consists in helping a company shifting from their relational data warehouse into a NoSQL data warehouse. The thing is that what they are looking for is better performance in large jobs but so far they have used a single machine and if they indeed migrate to NoSQL they still wish to keep using a single machine for cost reasons.
As far as I know the whole point of NoSQL is to run it in a large distributed system of several machines. So I don't see the point of this migration, specially since I am pretty sure (but not entirely) that if they do install NoSQL, they will probably end having even worst performance.
But still I am not comfortable telling them this since I am still new to this area (less than a month), so I wonder, is there are any situation where using NoSQL in a single machine for a datawarehouse would be justifiable performance wise? Or is it just a plain bad idea?
The answer to your question, like the answer to so many questions, is "it depends."
Ignoring the commentary on the question, I think there may be legitimacy to your client's question. Both relational and non-relational databases ultimately hold data in key-value tuples, with indexes and such to ensure quick and speedy access to the data. The difference is that SQL/relational databases contain an incredible amount of overhead to attempt the optimal way to retrieve results given an unknown set of queries, as well as ensure stable concurrency. This overhead is both computationally expensive and rarely results in the optimal solution. As a result, SQL databases often perform significantly slower for simple repetitive queries.
No-sql databases, on the other hand, are more of a "bare-bones" database, relying on programmers and intelligent design to achieve success. They are optimized to retrieve a value for a given key very quickly, often sub-millisecond. As a result, increased up front investment in the design results in superior and near-optimal performance. It will be necessary to determine the cost-benefit of doing this up-front design, but it is all but guaranteed that the no-sql approach will perform better regardless of the number of machines involved (in fact, SQL databases are very difficult or impossible to cluster together and is one of the main reasons why NoSql was developed).
Eventually we will see relational-like solutions implemented on a no-sql platform. In fact, Mongo, Elasticsearch, and Couchbase (probably others) already have SQL-like query functionality. But right now, you are faced with this dilemma.
For a single machine if the load is write heavy e.g. your logging a lot of events you could do for cassandra. Also a good alternative is hbase but its heavy and not suggested for single node. If they expose api in json you could look into document based dbs such as couchbase, mongo db. If you have an idea about the load then selecting a nosql data store is much easier
If you're in a position where you need to pick one, I think you should look first at MongoDB. If you've never tried it, I really recommend you visit their live demo with tutorial and give it a try. If you like, download and follow the installation guide on their site. It's free, runs well on a single machine, and is incredibly easy to use.
In addition to MongoDB, I've used Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, SQLite, and HBase. I understand Cassandra should be in the list but I've not tried it. With MongoDB, I was fully deployed and executing reads and writes from an application in like two hours. I attribute most of that to their website's clear and concise instructional content. The biggest learning curve was figuring out how the queries work for things like updating a record or deleting a record without deleting the entire set of similar records.
Regarding NoSQL vs RDBMS, some points to consider:
Adding a new column to RDBMS table can lock the database in or degrade performance in another
MongoDB is schema-less so adding a new field, does not effect old documents and will be instant (think how flexible that really is - throw any dimension of data into this system without maintenance overhead)
You're less likely to require a DBA to solve your schema problems when an application changes
I think problems related to table size are irrelevant, so you won't run into a scaling problem - just a disk space problem on single machine
I am implementing a sinatra/rails based web portal that might eventually have few many:many relationships between tables/models. This is a one man team and part time but real world app.
I discussed my entity with someone and was advised to try neo4j. Coming from real 'non-sexy' enterprise world, my inclination is to use relational db until it stops scaling or becomes a nightmare because of sharding etc and then think about anything else.
HOWEVER,
I am using postgres for the first time in this project along with datamapper and its taking me time to get started very fast
I am just trying out few things and building more use cases so I consitently have to update my schema (prototyping idea and feedback from beta) . I wont have to do this in neo4j (except changing my queries)
Seems like its very easy to setup search using neo4j . But Postgres can do full text search as well.
Postgres recently announced support for json and javascript. Wondering if I should just stick with PG and invest more time learning PG (which has a good community) instead neo4j.
Looking for usecases where neo4j is better, especially at protyping/initial phase of a project. I understand if the website grows I might end up having multiple persistent technologies like s3, relational (PG), mongo etc.
Also it would be good to know how it plays out with Rails/Ruby ecosystem.
Update1:
I got a lot of good answers and seems like the right thing to do is stick with Postgres for now (especially since I deploy to heroku)
However the idea of being schema-less is tempting. Basically I am thinking of a approach where you don't define a datamodel until you have say 100-150 users and you have yourself figured out a good schema (business use cases) for your product , while you are just demoing the concept and getting feedback with limited signups. Then one can decide a schema and start with relational.
Would be nice to know if there are easy to use schema/less persistence option (based on ease to use/setup for new user) that might give up say scaling etc.
Graph databases should be considered if you have a really chaotic data model. They were needed to express highly complex relationships between entities. To do that, they store relationships at the data level whereas RDBMS use a declarative approach. Storing relationships only makes sense if these relationships are very different, otherwise you'll just end up duplicating data over and over, taking a lot of space for nothing.
To require such variety in relationships you'd have to handle huge amount of data. This is where graph databases shines because instand of doing tons of joins, they just pick a record and follow his relationships. To support my statement : you'll notice that every use cases on Neo4j's website are dealing with very complex data.
In brief, if you don't feel concerned with what I said above, I think you should use another technology. If this is just about scaling, schemalessness or starting fast a project, then look at other NoSQL solutions (more specifically, either column or document oriented databases). Otherwise you should stick with PostgreSQL. You could also, like you said, consider polyglot persistence,
About your update, you might consider hStore. I think it fits your requirements. It's a PostgreSQL module which also works on Heroku.
I don't think I agree that you should only use a graph database when your data model is very complex. I'm sure they could handle a simple data model/relationships as well.
If you have no prior experience with Neo4j or Postgres, then most likely both with take quite a bit of time to learn well.
Some things to keep in mind when picking:
It's not just about development against a database technology. You should consider deployment as well. How easy is it to deploy and scale Postgres/Neo4j?
Consider the community and tools around each technology. Is there a data mapper for Neo4j like there is for Postgres?
Consider that the data models are considerably different between the two. If you can already think relationally, then I'd probably stick with Postgres. If you go with Neo4j you're going to be making a lot of mistakes for several months with your data models.
Over time I've learned to keep it simple when I can. Postgres might be the boring choice compared to Neo4j, but boring doesn't keep you up at night. =)
Also I never see anyone mention it, but you should look at Riak (http://basho.com/riak/) too. It's a document database that also provides relationships (links) between objects. Not as mature as a graph database, but it can connect a few entities quickly.
The most appropriate choice depends on what problem you are trying to solve.
If you just have a few many to many tables, a relational database can be fine. In general, there is better OR-mapper support for relational databases, as they are much older and have a standardized interface and row-column structure. They also have been improved on for a long time, so they are stable and optimized for what they are doing.
A graph database is better if e.g. your problem is more about the connections between entities, especially if you need higher distance connections, like "detect cycles (of unspecified length)", some "what do friends-of-a-friend like". Things like that get unwieldy when restricted to SQL joins. A problem specific language like cypher in case of Neo4j makes that much more concise. On the downside, there are mappers between graph dbs and objects, but not for every framework and language under the sun.
I recently implemented a system prototype using neo4j and it was very useful to be able to talk about the structure and connections of our data and be able to model that one to one in the data storage. Also, adding other connections between data points was easy, neo4j being a schemaless storage. We ended up switching to mongodb due to troubles with write performance, but I don't think we could have finished the prototype with that in the same time.
Other NoSQL datastores like document based, column, key-value also cover specific usecases. Polyglot persistence is definitively something to look at, so keep your choice of backend reasonably separated from your business logic, to allow you to change your technology later if you learned something new.
There was an article on Hacker News a couple of days ago that reached first page titled something like
"2 cases when not to use Mongodb" but I really can't find it anymore...
Does anyone know where I can find the above described article?
What cases are there when NoSQL fails?
We use MongoDB for storing tons and tons of analytics data for which we don't care if some stuff occasionally gets lost in a server crash. The data really fits MongoDB well and it would have been a nightmare if we were to use an SQL database for this. But for bank transactions we wouldn't even consider MongoDB.
The write lock might be a problem for some people. On the other hand MongoDB supports easy sharding, much easier than with SQL. Sharding allows us to scale horizontally which is a huge plus for our data.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1691748
By any reasonable definition "NoSQL" ought to include non-SQL RDBMSs in its scope (because there's no sound reason why the relational model can't address the same requirements as other NoSQL models). If you accept that, then there is no limit to what NoSQL DBMSs could do. We would have no more need of SQL - ever!
Sadly, there seems to be a common assumption among NoSQL thought leaders that "NoSQL" has to mean "not relational". That is highly unfortunate because if the relational model is ignored then NoSQL is never likely to replace SQL for many purposes. (I take it for granted that finding a long-term, relational model replacement for SQL would actually be a good thing :)
You don't want to use NoSQL typically when you....
... don't want to use SQL! /hardy har har
Most of the NoSQL solutions I've seen seem to fall in the key-value store approach, and aren't relational. They tend to give up ACID properties.
So when you evaluate a database system, when you don't need ACID, when you don't want relational algebra, when you do have a need for a KV store, then the NoSQL approach is your friend.
Note too that there is a wide variety of 'NoSQL' systems, and they all are busily working on slightly different approaches.
Recently I've been working a little with MongoDB and I have to say I really like it. However it is a completely different type of database then I am used. I've noticed that it is most definitely better for certain types of data, however for heavily normalized databases it might not be the best choice.
It appears to me however that it can completely take the place of just about any relational database you may have and in most cases perform better, which is mind boggling. This leads me to ask a few questions:
Are document-oriented databases being developed to be the next generation of databases and basically replace relational databases completely?
Is it possible that projects would be better off using both a document-oriented database and a relational database side by side for various data which is better suited for one or the other?
If document-oriented databases are not meant to replace relational databases, then does anyone have an example of a database structure which would absolutely be better off in a relational database (or vice-versa)?
Are document-oriented databases have been developed to be the next generation of databases and basically replace relational databases completely?
No. Document-oriented databases (like MongoDB) are very good at the type of tasks that we typically see in modern web sites (fast look-ups of individual items or small sets of items).
But they make some big trade-offs with relational systems. Without things like ACID compliance they're not going to be able to replace certain RDBMS. And if you look at systems like MongoDB, the lack of ACID compliance is a big reason it's so fast.
Is it possible that projects would be better off using both a document-oriented database and a relational database side by side for various data which is better suited for one or the other?
Yes. In fact, I'm running a very large production web-site that uses both. The system was started in MySQL, but we've migrated part of it over to MongoDB, b/c we need a Key-Value store and MySQL just isn't very good at finding one item in a 150M records.
If document-oriented databases are not meant to replace relational databases, then does anyone have an example of a database structure which would absolutely be better off in a relational database (or vice-versa)?
Document-oriented databases are great storing data that is easily contained in "key-value" and simple, linear "parent-child" relationships. Simple examples here are things like Blogs and Wikis.
However, relational databases still have a strong leg up on things like reporting, which tends to be "set-based".
Honestly, I can see a world where most data is "handled" by Document-oriented database, but where the reporting is done in a relational database that is updated by Map-reduce jobs.
This is really a question of fitness for purpose.
If you want to be able to join some tables together and return a filtered set of results, you can only do that with a relational database. If you want mind-bending performance and have incredible volumes of data, that's when column-family or document-oriented databases come into their own.
This is a classic trade-off. Relational databases offer you a whole suite of features, which comes with a performance cost. If you couldn't join, index, scan or perform a whole other list of features, you remove the need to have any view over ALL data, which gives you the performance and distribution you need to crunch serious data.
Also, I recommend you follow the blogs of Ayende Rahien on this topic.
http://ayende.com/blog/
#Sohnee is spot on. I might add that relational databases
are excellent for retrieving information in unexpected combinations -- even if that occasionally leads to the Bad Idea of extensive reports being run on time-sensitive production systems rather than on a separate data warehouse.
are a mature technology where you can easily find staff and well tested solutions to any number of problems (including the limitations of the relational model, as well as the imperfect implementation that is SQL).
Ask yourself what you want to do, and what qualities are important to you. You can do everything programming related in shell scripts. Do you want to?
I keep asking the same question, which is what landed me here. I use both MySQL and MongoDB (not in tandem currently, though its an idea). I have to honestly say I'm very happy to never touch MySQL again. Sure there's the "ACID" compliance, but have you ever run into the need to repair your tables with MySQL? Have you ever had a corrupted database? It happens. Have you ever had any other issues with MySQL? Any lock contentions or dead locks? Any problems with clustering? How easy was it to setup and configure?
MongoDB...You turn it on and it's done....Then it's autosharding. It's incredibly simple and it's also incredibly fast. So think about that. Your time.
No, they don't have JOINs but it's a completely incorrect statement to say that it discounts more than 99% of data management needs. I often get opposition when trying to explain MongoDB, people even snickering. Let's just face it. People don't want to learn new things and they think that what they know is all they need. Sure, you can get away using MySQL the rest of your life and build your web sites. It works, we know it works. We also know it fails. If it didn't, you'd never ask the question and we probably wouldn't see so many document oriented databases. We know that yes it does scale but it's a pain in the rear to scale it.
Also let's eliminate traffic and scaling from the picture. Take out setup. Now let's focus on use. What is your experience when using MySQL? How good are you with MySQL architecture and making efficient queries? How much time do you spend looking over queries with EXPLAIN? How much time do you spend making schema diagrams? ... I say take that time back. It's better spent elsewhere.
That's my two cents. I really do love MongoDB and hope to never use MySQL again and for the type of web sites I build, it's very possible that I won't need to. Though I'm still trying to find out WHEN I would want to use MySQL over MongoDB, not when I CAN (let's face it, it stores data, congratulations, I could write a ton of XML files too but it's not a good idea), but when it would BENEFIT to use one or the other. In the meantime, I'm going to go do my job with MongoDB and have less headaches.
As long as you don't need multi-object transactions, MongoDB can be a favorable replacement for an RDMBS, especially in a web application context. Speed, schemalessness, and document modeling are all helpful this domain.
In my opinion document-oriented databases are only good for
Databases which data is better represented using a hierarchical (tree) model. This is not common for website databases.
Databases with huge amount of data like the Facebook and Amazon databases. In this case it is required to sacrifice the benefits of the relational model.
MongoDB main characteristics are
document model (JSON)
high level(close to real world object), less collections
sharding (optional)
programmer friendly
drivers, same data structures arrays/hash maps
Document databases
A document is more general than a table, its far easier to represent a table with a JSON than storing JSON to a table.
So yes document databases could replace table databases.
Sharding
Joins in sharded collections are expensive for any database.
MongoDB added $lookup years now, and in MongoDB 5.1+ it can be used even when both collections are sharded.
But looks like joins in distributed databases are slow, and should be avoided, so relational way of modelling should be avoided.
No sharding
I think when sharding isn't used, MongoDB will co-exists and overlap with relational databases(especially after ACID support and $lookup support), to replace them its hard, and doesn't look like goal of MongoDB right now.
So overal looks like MongoDB could do what relational databases do,
but for now its not a replacement.
The opposite isn't true, relational databases have much bigger problems if they try to behave like MongoDB
AFAIK, document databases don't have JOIN. That's pretty much a show-stopper for > 99% of data management needs.
As Matthew Flaschen points out in the comments, even on the desktop, databases such as SQLite are introducing SQL semantics to areas that have traditionally used propriety file formats or XML.