4 ms·
We store 100-1000 GB of data in each wide table on our untrendy on-prem SQL server boxes. 10GB is peanuts. In fact, I propose (given the limitations suggested b
by lwansbrough 9y ago
We store 100-1000 GB of data in each wide table on our untrendy on-prem SQL server boxes. 10GB is peanuts. In fact, I propose (given the limitations suggested by the author) that DynamoDB may have NO practical uses worth exploring. If NoSQL is about scale, and it can't scale, what's it good for?
I can understand having to optimize your key space, but in this case it necessitates extreme premature optimization.
- ryanworl 9y agoEach shard is 10GB. The unit of scale is a shard. You can have as many shards as you want.
- lwansbrough 9y agoIt's one shard per node though, right? So you're talking about SERIOUS cost when you want to store _actual_ big data.
- pmohan6 9y agoDynamoDB is a multi-tenant service. There is no dedicated node for you. Each shard is replicated across 3 nodes and those nodes contain replicas of other shards/tables.
- ryanworl 9y agoYou don't pay per node. In fact, the concept of a node is not exposed at all. Each shard is technically on three nodes for high availability. You pay for provisioned capacity and data storage per GB.
- manojlds 9y agoFrom my understanding, node is virtual nodes. This article on Cassandra should give some info - https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/2.1/cassandra/architecture/architectureDataDistributeDistribute_c.html https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/2.1/cassandra/archite...