![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
says "from humongous" but I think it may also be a reference to Blazing Saddles. wow it's good 173.164.238.54 ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from having a brief overview of the issues around MongoDB's lack of single-server durability. -- Aimaz ( talk) 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The current linked criticism is from a competitor (who hid his commercial interest in a competing product Hyperdex when blogging this) and is also technically inaccurate). ^ Broken by Design: MongoDB Fault Tolerance is written by author of Hyperdex.
I'm putting some note of the fact back in. The default WriteConcern dropped acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single client failure for the first five years of the software's release. The "SAFE" WriteConcern still drops acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single server failure, or at least it did last year. I think Emin Gün Sirer's writeup hits the relevant technical points in a clear way. It also contains a lot of flames; if you can find a better writeup of the issues with MongoDB and durability, please do cite them. grendel| khan 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable, third-party source that can provide some valid information about Mongo's actual performance? How does it relate and scale compared to widespred solutions like MySQL and other NoSQL databases? --IP 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.90.168 ( talk)
There's a handful of sections that I thought were TOO detailed; specifically they listed things that will change over time, and it's not clear that this article will be updated to keep up. (even if YOU think that YOU will do it when the time comes.) These sections:
for instance, Monitoring lists some current plugins. fine, but each is an independent project and at least one of the projects will run out of steam over the years; and at least one more, probably many, new plugins will show up. WP is not the place for these details; the Mongo group should maintain lists of what other attachable software is in what status, on their own site (or wherever it is, sourceforge or github...).
Instead of these complete lists, with meticulous links, you should just list a handful of the more prominent examples and refer people to Mongo's website for full details. EG language support. It's written in C++ so list C++; the mongo group would never give up that one no matter how threadbare they become. Then toss in a few server languages - those most likely to be used like PHP and Java. Then say "and, as of Sept 2011, about two dozen other languages". The detailed information should be in one place: the Mongo website and anybody interested can and should go there. What languages Mongo supports 10 years from now, will probably be different, and in fact Mongo might be gone by then, and there'll be nobody to update this page. So think of the future and make the page timeless.
OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
TO THE GUY WHO IS PUTTING unnecessary tags: you're putting SEVEN tags on the article without providing any concrete reason. First time, you did not provide any reason. Second time, you said "definitely overbloated and its tone is highly inappropriate", without actually specifying how does that related to SEVEN different tags?
This is classic example of trying to defame the subject of the article using drive-by tagging without actually making any effort to improve the article. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
WHY can't you selective tag sentences or remove content or post talk page comments instead of defacing the article? 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's plain obvious. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's still not obvious why SEVEN tags are necessary. I have repeated this point mutlipile times - RELEVANT tags are not a problem neither are sentence-wise tags. but SEVEN tags reflect insecurity of MS shills. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"The developer's application must know that it is talking to a sharded cluster when performing some operations. For example, a "findAndModify" query must contain the shard key if the queried collection is sharded". Can someone please explain what gobbledygook like this is doing on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice point. Removing it. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Andy, do you understand anything about the article that you're criticizing? It is about a program used exclusively by software developers (it has no end-user interface like MS Access), as a component of larger applications that they deliver to end users. As such, its intended audience is primarily developers and to be informative to that audience, it has to include technical details of interest even if those aren't always comprehensible to non-programmers. It's similar to how a solid article on quantum mechanics will necessary assume some physics background. The accepted approach to such articles has generally been that there should be a lede paragraph/introduction aimed at non-specialist audiences, that says generally what the subject matter is about, but after that it is fine to go into technical detail.
Andy's comments on this article (here and at ANI) therefore come across to me as unhelpful, since as a programmer and occasional (non-expert) MongoDB user, I found the material Andy complains about to be relevant and informative (maybe the writing could be touched up a bit). In particular, people reading the article are quite likely comparing MongoDB to other NoSQL databases like Cassandra and Riak, so bringing out the unique characteristics of each db (such as their approaches to sharding and failover) in the articles is exactly the right thing to do. Removing the info does a disservice to our readers. So I'm planning to restore the removed info after checking it against the software docs or the O'Reilly book, to make sure the info was correct. 67.117.145.9 ( talk) 11:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The only claims to MongoDB being "Web scale" and "Scales right up" are from a satirical video. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twimoki ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
swirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendraimz ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
When speaking about sharding, the article says "The data is split into ranges (based on the shard key) and distributed across multiple shards.". However, as can be seen at docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/sharding-introduction/ , a hash based sharding (so not only range based sharding) can be used. This point is quite important if someone is trying to evaluate MongoDB by reading the article, as a range based sharding is not quite useful for some needs ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.32.231.213 ( talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As expressed in the article, "in addition" (to AGPL) "MongoDB Inc. offers proprietary licenses for MongoDB". So, article must be explicit: it is a dual licensing business model... or not? -- Krauss ( talk) 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone expand on MongoDB for BigData? I came across this "The MongoDB NoSQL database can underpin many Big Data systems, not only as a real-time, operational data store but in offline capacities as well. With MongoDB, organizations are serving more data, more users, more insight with greater ease — and creating more value worldwide. Read about MongoDB's big data use casesto learn more. Selecting the right big data technology for your application and goals is important. MongoDB, Inc. offers products and services that get you to production faster with less risk and effort. Learn more or contact us." [1] but I personally have no experience and was surprise to not find any info on Wikipedia.
References
I'm new to wikipedia, just want to bring it to your attention. Citation #27 (MongoDB queries don’t always return all matching documents!) is dead. I can't find a replacement, so I dunno what the fix is. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.232.95 ( talk) 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like there to be a section on the typical uses of this database. There are a ton of different NoSQL databases with wildly varying characteristics, not every database is suitable for a given application. 82.199.182.97 ( talk) 11:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Since mongodb changed to a new license called SSPL which isn't considered open source by anyone but MomgoDB itself, shouldn't the part "MongoDB is a free and open-source" changed to "MongoDB is a free" in the first sentence? The MongoDB CTO announced they will change the license, because the current SSPL has very slow chances to ever be OSI approved. [1]
Until MongoDB is again licensed with a license approved by OSI, it cannot be considered open source. 213.147.166.182 ( talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
SSPL has been withdrawn from the OSI approval process. See the mailing list. Anybody ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This page could do with a bit of info on the cloud vendors that offer MongoDB-as-a-Service via proxy ( Cosmos DB and Amazon DynamoDB are two known ones). I also added info about the arbiter, which is a crucial detail when using mongodb in distributed settings. Avindra talk 21:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article currently states:
This comment refers to an external analysis of MongoDB 4.2.6 [7]. Since then, MongoDB has acknowledged some bugs that caused this behaviour and issued fixes in 4.2.8 and 5.0 [8].
As a company employee I do not want to update the article directly, but can I request someone use this reference to update this section to be more accurate? 121.44.247.140 ( talk) 07:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just like one big ad.
[ Wikimedia Foundation and its user community agree by publishing of this text and of my IP, to unrestricted financial compensation (which may be directed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation) for stress and other consequences due to privacy infringement by its needless publicising of my IP, and further agrees to remove all such publicised IPs from its pages efficiently and promptly, and without further adue.]
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{Cite web|url=https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|title= MongoDB and Jepsen|website=MongoDB}}
to {{Cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508173236/https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|url=https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|title= MongoDB and Jepsen|website=MongoDB}}
(Also, why is this article even still semi-protected? But anyway) Signing Off, 99.146.242.37 ( talk) 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done with substantial rewrites and additions:
In an undated article entitled "MongoDB and Jepsen" (archived May 8, 2020)
[1], MongoDB said that version 3.6.4 had passed "the industry's toughest data safety, correctness, and consistency tests" by Jepsen, and that, "MongoDB offers among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today." On April 30, Jepsen, which describes itself as a "distributed systems safety research company", disputed both claims on Twitter, saying, "In that report, MongoDB lost data and violated causal by default." In its May 15 report on MongoDB version 4.2.6, Jepsen wrote that MongoDB had only mentioned tests that version 3.6.4 had passed, and that version had 4.2.6 introduced more problems.
[2] Jepsen's test summary reads in part:
Jepsen evaluated MongoDB version 4.2.6, and found that even at the strongest levels of read and write concern, it failed to preserve snapshot isolation. Instead, Jepsen observed read skew, cyclic information flow, duplicate writes, and internal consistency violations. Weak defaults meant that transactions could lose writes and allow dirty reads, even downgrading requested safety levels at the database and collection level. Moreover, the snapshot read concern did not guarantee snapshot unless paired with write concern majority—even for read-only transactions. These design choices complicate the safe use of MongoDB transactions. [3]
On May 26, Jepsen updated the report to say, "MongoDB identified a bug in the transaction retry mechanism which they believe was responsible for the anomalies observed in this report; a patch is scheduled for 4.2.8."
[3] As of June 10, 2023, the "MongoDB and Jepsen" page said the issue had been patched as of that version, and that, "Jepsen criticisms of the default write concerns have also been addressed, with the default write concern now elevated to the majority concern (w:majority) from MongoDB 5.0."
[4]
References
I relied quite heavily, but not entirely, on the primary sources. I also removed text that was a direct copypasta of the secondary source without properly attributing it as a direct quote. Feel free to ping me with suggestions for any further revisions. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I just wanna notify that the logo in the infobox is outdated. I wanna renew it by uploading the new version, but my account is not yet auto confirmed. As reference, you can see the new logo here on Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia. Thanks. ZanzibarSailor ( talk) 12:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change stable version to 7, source: https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/chicago-event-marks-general-availability-mongodb-version-7-0, https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/release-notes/7.0/ Marcin.wosinek ( talk) 08:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Done This value is stored at WikiData, not directly on the Wikipedia page. I set the most recent Wikidata version to "preferred," but it seems there are actually a few minor versions after that one that could be added.
PianoDan (
talk)
17:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
says "from humongous" but I think it may also be a reference to Blazing Saddles. wow it's good 173.164.238.54 ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from having a brief overview of the issues around MongoDB's lack of single-server durability. -- Aimaz ( talk) 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The current linked criticism is from a competitor (who hid his commercial interest in a competing product Hyperdex when blogging this) and is also technically inaccurate). ^ Broken by Design: MongoDB Fault Tolerance is written by author of Hyperdex.
I'm putting some note of the fact back in. The default WriteConcern dropped acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single client failure for the first five years of the software's release. The "SAFE" WriteConcern still drops acknowledged writes on the floor in case of a single server failure, or at least it did last year. I think Emin Gün Sirer's writeup hits the relevant technical points in a clear way. It also contains a lot of flames; if you can find a better writeup of the issues with MongoDB and durability, please do cite them. grendel| khan 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable, third-party source that can provide some valid information about Mongo's actual performance? How does it relate and scale compared to widespred solutions like MySQL and other NoSQL databases? --IP 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.90.168 ( talk)
There's a handful of sections that I thought were TOO detailed; specifically they listed things that will change over time, and it's not clear that this article will be updated to keep up. (even if YOU think that YOU will do it when the time comes.) These sections:
for instance, Monitoring lists some current plugins. fine, but each is an independent project and at least one of the projects will run out of steam over the years; and at least one more, probably many, new plugins will show up. WP is not the place for these details; the Mongo group should maintain lists of what other attachable software is in what status, on their own site (or wherever it is, sourceforge or github...).
Instead of these complete lists, with meticulous links, you should just list a handful of the more prominent examples and refer people to Mongo's website for full details. EG language support. It's written in C++ so list C++; the mongo group would never give up that one no matter how threadbare they become. Then toss in a few server languages - those most likely to be used like PHP and Java. Then say "and, as of Sept 2011, about two dozen other languages". The detailed information should be in one place: the Mongo website and anybody interested can and should go there. What languages Mongo supports 10 years from now, will probably be different, and in fact Mongo might be gone by then, and there'll be nobody to update this page. So think of the future and make the page timeless.
OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
TO THE GUY WHO IS PUTTING unnecessary tags: you're putting SEVEN tags on the article without providing any concrete reason. First time, you did not provide any reason. Second time, you said "definitely overbloated and its tone is highly inappropriate", without actually specifying how does that related to SEVEN different tags?
This is classic example of trying to defame the subject of the article using drive-by tagging without actually making any effort to improve the article. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
WHY can't you selective tag sentences or remove content or post talk page comments instead of defacing the article? 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's plain obvious. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's still not obvious why SEVEN tags are necessary. I have repeated this point mutlipile times - RELEVANT tags are not a problem neither are sentence-wise tags. but SEVEN tags reflect insecurity of MS shills. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"The developer's application must know that it is talking to a sharded cluster when performing some operations. For example, a "findAndModify" query must contain the shard key if the queried collection is sharded". Can someone please explain what gobbledygook like this is doing on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice point. Removing it. 203.99.208.3 ( talk) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Andy, do you understand anything about the article that you're criticizing? It is about a program used exclusively by software developers (it has no end-user interface like MS Access), as a component of larger applications that they deliver to end users. As such, its intended audience is primarily developers and to be informative to that audience, it has to include technical details of interest even if those aren't always comprehensible to non-programmers. It's similar to how a solid article on quantum mechanics will necessary assume some physics background. The accepted approach to such articles has generally been that there should be a lede paragraph/introduction aimed at non-specialist audiences, that says generally what the subject matter is about, but after that it is fine to go into technical detail.
Andy's comments on this article (here and at ANI) therefore come across to me as unhelpful, since as a programmer and occasional (non-expert) MongoDB user, I found the material Andy complains about to be relevant and informative (maybe the writing could be touched up a bit). In particular, people reading the article are quite likely comparing MongoDB to other NoSQL databases like Cassandra and Riak, so bringing out the unique characteristics of each db (such as their approaches to sharding and failover) in the articles is exactly the right thing to do. Removing the info does a disservice to our readers. So I'm planning to restore the removed info after checking it against the software docs or the O'Reilly book, to make sure the info was correct. 67.117.145.9 ( talk) 11:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The only claims to MongoDB being "Web scale" and "Scales right up" are from a satirical video. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twimoki ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
swirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendraimz ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
When speaking about sharding, the article says "The data is split into ranges (based on the shard key) and distributed across multiple shards.". However, as can be seen at docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/sharding-introduction/ , a hash based sharding (so not only range based sharding) can be used. This point is quite important if someone is trying to evaluate MongoDB by reading the article, as a range based sharding is not quite useful for some needs ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.32.231.213 ( talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As expressed in the article, "in addition" (to AGPL) "MongoDB Inc. offers proprietary licenses for MongoDB". So, article must be explicit: it is a dual licensing business model... or not? -- Krauss ( talk) 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone expand on MongoDB for BigData? I came across this "The MongoDB NoSQL database can underpin many Big Data systems, not only as a real-time, operational data store but in offline capacities as well. With MongoDB, organizations are serving more data, more users, more insight with greater ease — and creating more value worldwide. Read about MongoDB's big data use casesto learn more. Selecting the right big data technology for your application and goals is important. MongoDB, Inc. offers products and services that get you to production faster with less risk and effort. Learn more or contact us." [1] but I personally have no experience and was surprise to not find any info on Wikipedia.
References
I'm new to wikipedia, just want to bring it to your attention. Citation #27 (MongoDB queries don’t always return all matching documents!) is dead. I can't find a replacement, so I dunno what the fix is. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.232.95 ( talk) 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like there to be a section on the typical uses of this database. There are a ton of different NoSQL databases with wildly varying characteristics, not every database is suitable for a given application. 82.199.182.97 ( talk) 11:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Since mongodb changed to a new license called SSPL which isn't considered open source by anyone but MomgoDB itself, shouldn't the part "MongoDB is a free and open-source" changed to "MongoDB is a free" in the first sentence? The MongoDB CTO announced they will change the license, because the current SSPL has very slow chances to ever be OSI approved. [1]
Until MongoDB is again licensed with a license approved by OSI, it cannot be considered open source. 213.147.166.182 ( talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
SSPL has been withdrawn from the OSI approval process. See the mailing list. Anybody ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This page could do with a bit of info on the cloud vendors that offer MongoDB-as-a-Service via proxy ( Cosmos DB and Amazon DynamoDB are two known ones). I also added info about the arbiter, which is a crucial detail when using mongodb in distributed settings. Avindra talk 21:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article currently states:
This comment refers to an external analysis of MongoDB 4.2.6 [7]. Since then, MongoDB has acknowledged some bugs that caused this behaviour and issued fixes in 4.2.8 and 5.0 [8].
As a company employee I do not want to update the article directly, but can I request someone use this reference to update this section to be more accurate? 121.44.247.140 ( talk) 07:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just like one big ad.
[ Wikimedia Foundation and its user community agree by publishing of this text and of my IP, to unrestricted financial compensation (which may be directed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation) for stress and other consequences due to privacy infringement by its needless publicising of my IP, and further agrees to remove all such publicised IPs from its pages efficiently and promptly, and without further adue.]
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{Cite web|url=https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|title= MongoDB and Jepsen|website=MongoDB}}
to {{Cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508173236/https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|url=https://www.mongodb.com/jepsen|title= MongoDB and Jepsen|website=MongoDB}}
(Also, why is this article even still semi-protected? But anyway) Signing Off, 99.146.242.37 ( talk) 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done with substantial rewrites and additions:
In an undated article entitled "MongoDB and Jepsen" (archived May 8, 2020)
[1], MongoDB said that version 3.6.4 had passed "the industry's toughest data safety, correctness, and consistency tests" by Jepsen, and that, "MongoDB offers among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today." On April 30, Jepsen, which describes itself as a "distributed systems safety research company", disputed both claims on Twitter, saying, "In that report, MongoDB lost data and violated causal by default." In its May 15 report on MongoDB version 4.2.6, Jepsen wrote that MongoDB had only mentioned tests that version 3.6.4 had passed, and that version had 4.2.6 introduced more problems.
[2] Jepsen's test summary reads in part:
Jepsen evaluated MongoDB version 4.2.6, and found that even at the strongest levels of read and write concern, it failed to preserve snapshot isolation. Instead, Jepsen observed read skew, cyclic information flow, duplicate writes, and internal consistency violations. Weak defaults meant that transactions could lose writes and allow dirty reads, even downgrading requested safety levels at the database and collection level. Moreover, the snapshot read concern did not guarantee snapshot unless paired with write concern majority—even for read-only transactions. These design choices complicate the safe use of MongoDB transactions. [3]
On May 26, Jepsen updated the report to say, "MongoDB identified a bug in the transaction retry mechanism which they believe was responsible for the anomalies observed in this report; a patch is scheduled for 4.2.8."
[3] As of June 10, 2023, the "MongoDB and Jepsen" page said the issue had been patched as of that version, and that, "Jepsen criticisms of the default write concerns have also been addressed, with the default write concern now elevated to the majority concern (w:majority) from MongoDB 5.0."
[4]
References
I relied quite heavily, but not entirely, on the primary sources. I also removed text that was a direct copypasta of the secondary source without properly attributing it as a direct quote. Feel free to ping me with suggestions for any further revisions. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑✈️ 22:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I just wanna notify that the logo in the infobox is outdated. I wanna renew it by uploading the new version, but my account is not yet auto confirmed. As reference, you can see the new logo here on Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia. Thanks. ZanzibarSailor ( talk) 12:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change stable version to 7, source: https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/chicago-event-marks-general-availability-mongodb-version-7-0, https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/release-notes/7.0/ Marcin.wosinek ( talk) 08:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Done This value is stored at WikiData, not directly on the Wikipedia page. I set the most recent Wikidata version to "preferred," but it seems there are actually a few minor versions after that one that could be added.
PianoDan (
talk)
17:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)