Playground > Scaling Demo
← Back to Playground

MongoDB Sharding vs PostgreSQL Partitioning

Experience the difference between automatic horizontal scaling and manual partitioning

Real Impact: MongoDB's automatic sharding reduces operational overhead by 90% compared to manual PostgreSQL partitioning, while providing seamless horizontal scaling and zero-downtime shard additions.

🔧 Partitioning Strategies Deep Dive

Understanding the fundamental differences in how MongoDB sharding and PostgreSQL partitioning approach data distribution:

MongoDB Range-based Sharding

Strategy: Automatic chunk-based distribution using shard key ranges (e.g., user_id: 1-1000, 1001-2000, etc.)

Chunk Management: MongoDB automatically splits chunks when they exceed 64MB or 100,000 documents

Rebalancing: Built-in balancer continuously monitors and redistributes chunks across shards

Shard Key Optimization: mongos analyzes query patterns to optimize chunk distribution

Real-world Impact: Zero-downtime scaling with automatic load balancing maintains consistent performance

MongoDB Hash-based Sharding

Strategy: Hash function ensures even distribution regardless of shard key cardinality

Use Case: Ideal for monotonically increasing keys (timestamps, ObjectIds) that would create hotspots

Trade-offs: Range queries become scatter-gather operations, but writes are perfectly distributed

Automatic Balancing: Hash distribution inherently prevents hotspots and uneven data growth

PostgreSQL Range Partitioning

Strategy: Manual table inheritance with CHECK constraints defining data ranges

Routing Logic: Application or trigger functions must route data to correct partitions

Scaling Process: Requires downtime for partition creation, index building, and constraint updates

Rebalancing: Manual data migration required - no automatic redistribution mechanism

Real-world Impact: Significant operational overhead and planned downtime for scaling operations

PostgreSQL Hash/List Partitioning

Hash Strategy: Built-in hash partitioning available in PostgreSQL 11+

Limitation: Fixed number of partitions - cannot dynamically add partitions without table restructuring

List Strategy: Explicit value-based partitioning for categorical data

Operational Overhead: Still requires application-level awareness and manual partition management

⚡ Middleware & Routing Architecture Comparison

The architectural differences between MongoDB's mongos router and PostgreSQL's application-level routing solutions:

🍃 MongoDB mongos Router
  • Native Query Router: mongos acts as intelligent proxy, completely transparent to applications
  • Automatic Query Optimization: Determines optimal query execution plan across shards
  • Connection Pooling: Built-in connection management and load balancing to shard replicas
  • Metadata Management: Real-time config server synchronization for topology changes
  • Query Types:
    • Targeted queries route to specific shards
    • Scatter-gather for cross-shard aggregations
    • Broadcast for schema operations
  • Fault Tolerance: Automatic failover and retry logic built into router
  • Zero Application Changes: Applications connect to mongos exactly like single MongoDB instance
🐘 PostgreSQL Routing Solutions
  • pgpool-II: External connection pooler with limited query routing capabilities
  • Application-Level Logic: Custom code required to determine target partition/server
  • Connection Management: Manual connection pool configuration for each partition
  • Query Complexity: Cross-partition queries require application-level joins and aggregation
  • Distributed Transactions: 2PC required for cross-partition ACID compliance
  • Configuration Overhead:
    • Separate connection strings per partition
    • Load balancer rules for read distribution
    • Custom health check implementations
  • Scaling Impact: Every partition addition requires application deployment and configuration updates

Real-World Middleware Comparison:

While both architectures can achieve horizontal scaling, the operational complexity differs significantly:

  • MongoDB: Single sh.addShard() command automatically updates all routing logic
  • PostgreSQL: Requires updating connection pools, application config, load balancer rules, and potentially application logic

The mongos router's intelligence allows it to optimize query execution dynamically, while PostgreSQL solutions typically require pre-planned query patterns and manual optimization.

⚖️ Data Distribution Balance: The Reality

Addressing the critical concern about balanced vs. imbalanced data distribution in both systems:

The PostgreSQL Partitioning Challenge:

While it's theoretically possible to achieve balanced partitions in PostgreSQL, the practical reality reveals significant operational challenges:

  • Initial Balance ≠ Sustained Balance: Even with perfect initial partitioning, data growth patterns often create imbalances over time
  • Rebalancing Complexity: Moving data between PostgreSQL partitions requires:
    • Manual INSERT INTO target_partition SELECT * FROM source_partition WHERE condition
    • Followed by DELETE FROM source_partition WHERE condition
    • Transaction locks that can last hours for large datasets
    • Downtime for constraint updates and index rebuilding
  • Monitoring & Detection: No built-in tools to detect partition imbalances or suggest rebalancing strategies

MongoDB's Automatic Rebalancing:

  • Continuous Monitoring: Config servers track chunk distribution across shards in real-time
  • Threshold-Based Balancing: Automatically triggers migration when shard imbalance exceeds configured thresholds
  • Non-Blocking Operations: Chunk migrations happen in background without affecting read/write operations
  • Adaptive Splitting: Chunks automatically split when they grow beyond size limits, preventing hotspots

Production Reality Example:

Consider an e-commerce platform with user_id-based partitioning. New user registrations create a "hot partition" in PostgreSQL that requires manual intervention. MongoDB's balancer detects this pattern and automatically redistributes chunks, maintaining consistent performance without operational overhead.

📋 What This Demo Shows

▼

🎮 Demo Controls

0
Total Records
3
MongoDB Shards
1
SQL Partitions

💻 Database Commands

// Current MongoDB sharding commands sh.enableSharding("ecommerce") sh.shardCollection("ecommerce.users", {"user_id": 1}) // Query routing (automatic) db.users.find({"user_id": 12345}) // → Routes to correct shard db.users.find({"city": "SF"}) // → Broadcast query // Add new shard (what you're doing) sh.addShard("shard004/new-region:27017") // ✅ Automatic rebalancing, zero downtime
-- Current PostgreSQL partitioning commands -- Creating new partition (what you're doing) CREATE TABLE users_partition_3 ( user_id INTEGER NOT NULL, email VARCHAR(255), name VARCHAR(255), created_at TIMESTAMP, CHECK (user_id >= 20001 AND user_id <= 30000) ) INHERITS (users); -- Create indexes on new partition CREATE INDEX idx_users_partition_3_id ON users_partition_3 (user_id); CREATE INDEX idx_users_partition_3_email ON users_partition_3 (email); -- Update trigger function for routing CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION users_insert_trigger() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $ BEGIN IF NEW.user_id >= 1 AND NEW.user_id <= 10000 THEN INSERT INTO users_partition_1 VALUES (NEW.*); ELSIF NEW.user_id >= 10001 AND NEW.user_id <= 20000 THEN INSERT INTO users_partition_2 VALUES (NEW.*); ELSIF NEW.user_id >= 20001 AND NEW.user_id <= 30000 THEN INSERT INTO users_partition_3 VALUES (NEW.*); ELSE RAISE EXCEPTION 'user_id out of range'; END IF; RETURN NULL; END; $ LANGUAGE plpgsql; -- Update application connection pool -- ⚠️ Restart required for new partition recognition -- ⚠️ NO automatic data rebalancing - existing data stays put!
MongoDB Sharded Cluster
🎯 mongos Query Router Automatic routing & load balancing
PostgreSQL Manual Partitioning
⚙️ Application Logic + pgpool Manual routing & connection pooling

📊 Activity Log