Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3675858
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 19, 20262026-05-19T03:01:45+00:00 2026-05-19T03:01:45+00:00

I just discovered a bizarre behavior exhibited by MongoDB. Apparently, any collection name with

  • 0

I just discovered a bizarre behavior exhibited by MongoDB.

Apparently, any collection name with the string “system.” anywhere in it will just not function correctly.

To make matters worse, it won’t even tell you anything is wrong!

It’s really more a matter of curiosity, but does anybody have any idea why this would happen? Is it documented somewhere?

My assumption is that it uses “”system.*” collections to store things internally (like indexes) and doesn’t want you messing with them, but this doesn’t seem like the correct behavior to me.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-19T03:01:46+00:00Added an answer on May 19, 2026 at 3:01 am

    You are correct “system.*” is a reserved collection namespace used by MongoDB in each DB.

    It is used to store indexes and users, etc.

    SQL Server has many such tables too, and I don’t believe they warn you not to use them either 🙂

    But you could always put in a request for such functionality: http://jira.mongodb.org/

    You can see them by running …

    > show collections

    and you’ll see something like …

    system.indexes

    system.users

    So, you can see your indexes for example:

    > db.system.indexes.find()

    From the MongoDB docs:

    The .system.* namespaces in
    MongoDB are special and contain
    database system information. System
    collections include:

    • system.namespaces lists all namespaces.
    • system.indexes lists all indexes.
    • Additional namespace / index metadata exists in the database.ns
      files, and is opaque.
    • system.profile stores database profiling information.
    • system.users lists users who may access the database.
    • local.sources stores replica slave configuration data and state.
    • Information on the structure of a stored object is stored within the
      object itself. See BSON .

    There are several restrictions on
    manipulation of objects in the system
    collections. Inserting in
    system.indexes adds an index, but
    otherwise that table is immutable (the
    special drop index command updates it
    for you). system.users is modifiable.
    system.profile is droppable.

    http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/system-collections/

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I just discovered a very strange behavior with Type.GetInterface and nested Types. The following
I just discovered that perl ignores space between the sigil and its variable name
I just discovered PHP-ActiveRecord not too long ago after struggling for nearly a month
I just discovered ASP.net uses its own profile system to register users and there
I just discovered that C++/CLI has a keyword that is not present (AFAIK) on
I just discovered that i can give a name to For and While statements.
Just discovered MSpec, and want to try it out. However, I can't find any
I just discovered that empty() does not work when passing data from an object.
I just discovered, quite by accident, that this seems to work: Public Interface Ix
To my amazement I just discovered that the C99 stdint.h is missing from MS

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.