Would like to set up a key-value store that is sharded across multiple machines.

We are currently using MongoDB, is there a reason why we shouldn't use MongoDB for this purpose?

We also use Redis, however for this use case, we would like to use the hard drive and Redis is in-RAM only.

2 Answers 2


There are a number of reasons not to use MongoDB as a pure key-value store, and there are some reasons to consider it. Mongo is optimized as a document store - it indexes all the fields in a document, and has rich primitives for JSON objects and hierarchies. You can use it as a key-value store, but the single-threaded nature means you won't be getting good performance out of your hardware. Storing simple blobs removes a number of the benefits of Mongo. Mongo has algorithms where it splits data chunks as you insert, which can create lag. Monogo's system for re-partitioning is cumbersome, as well. The benefit of a key-value system is it should be really simple and really fast, so you can scale up and keep server and management costs down.

Other systems are more tuned for key-value use. You mention Redis, one of the best key-value stores, but the repartitioning/clustering in Redis is still alpha-level, and there is a requirement of DRAM. Some people build their own shard layers and partitioning layers on Redis - this is very common among some of the larger Chinese social networks.

Cassandra is sometimes used as a key-value store. This isn't the best use of Cassandra, as Cassandra's "super column families" provide rich indexing. Cassandra isn't as fast as databases written in C like Redis and Mongo, but does have strong clustering capabilities.

One store you should strongly consider in this area is Aerospike. Aerospike has very flexible cluster management - adding a single node by just bringing it up - as well as support for both DRAM and SSD/Flash - and easy replication for HA. It's in use at very high levels of scale by advertising platform companies who need huge key value stores. Aerospike has a free version that supports node sizes to 200G.

CoucheBase (was MemBase) is another system to look at for key-value use. It provides some clustering primitives, and is focused more around in-memory use.


I agree with @Brian that it makes more sense to use Redis for this purpose, except that its clustering functionality is in Alpha (it still is at this point - see the official cluster specification which is a work in progress). However, another option that has not been mentioned is to use a hosted Redis service that handles the sharding automatically. I have heard of this Redis service by Garantia Data, there is also RedisToGo which was purchased by RackSpace, and probably a few others. I haven't tried this myself but the vendors claim they are transparent for existing Redis users, and handle all the sharding/clustering behind the scenes. But take into account these are commercial products, and depending on your data volume the cost could be significant. By the way, Cassandra and Couchbase also have hosted options which claim to make clustering easier.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.