I&#x27;ve said a lot on the subject, but for me the top benefits that come to mind are:<p>- Built to be distrubted (sharding and replication are super ez to use)<p>- Easy to use admin interface comes built in<p>- RQL (which is a minus for you, as you noted)<p>- Joins<p>- Streaming (you&#x27;re right, but I think this niche grows bigger by the day)<p>- Functional chaining interface, with lots of nice utility functions<p>- Geospatial commands (this is oft overlooked, and another really awesome thing it does, check out <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rethinkdb.com&#x2F;api&#x2F;javascript&#x2F;#circle" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rethinkdb.com&#x2F;api&#x2F;javascript&#x2F;#circle</a>)<p>If I were to summarize your points:<p>- RQL is not that compelling, DSL is preferable<p>- No full text search<p>- No transactions<p>(please correct if I&#x27;ve missed anything)<p>The DSL problem is probably relatively straightforwardly fixed (just write a DSL that translates to builder calls), but I think that RQL sprung up from a disdain of DSLs that were built by mongo (and probably in some part SQL), that often become overly complicated, hard to use, and sometimes use obtuse&#x2F;hard-to-remember terminology.<p>The other missing-add-on points are valid of course, but they&#x27;re just about as equally valid for any document store you can find. I don&#x27;t speak for RethinkDB, but as far as I can see they do not claim to offer those things, so I don&#x27;t know if it should be held against them that they don&#x27;t. Of course, it makes sense that you&#x27;re not super excited for it because of those missing features you want.<p>However, I think you&#x27;d be hardpressed to find another document store that has gotten the rest of the things it does as right as RDB has gotten them. RDB has iterated their way to a really high quality document store, yet (I find) does not get the press to match how well it performs (and how many big pitfalls it avoided).