4 ms·
Tried Fauna once with their « Cloud » versions. I was absolutely shocked by the poor performance of the service. In my case I prototype some simple CRUD queri
by asien 8y ago
Tried Fauna once with their « Cloud » versions.
I was absolutely shocked by the poor performance of the service.
In my case I prototype some simple CRUD queries with NodeJS ,within the same datacenter region.
Insert took well over a second to complete and reading a simple document with one field took also half a second.
I was also unable to make « join » between document because how complex their query language is and their support basically encouraged me not to use « join » but to use « aggregate » like mongo ... Why offer this feature if I can’t use it ?
Has it changed since then ? It seems very clear for me that Fauna is entirely focused on Enterprises customers ( after all this is where the money is ) the cloud version seem to be just a gimmick.
- evanweaver 8y agoHmm, when did you try it? FaunaDB and the cloud service have changed a lot in the last few years, and performance is always improving. Typical write latencies in Cloud are in the 100ms range because the data is globally replicated. Typical read latencies are the 1ms-10ms range, because global coordination is not required, discounting the additional latency from the client to the closest datacenter. If you experienced something worse than that recently, maybe there is some other issue going on.
- asien 8y agoI will give it a second shot then. But just to confirm , is doing « join » something that is still not recommended ? Aggregation is tedious and lead to queries that are difficult to read and maintain.
- freels 8y agoIt's definitely recommended, depending on what you're trying to get out of the result. Happy to help out with query patterns on our community slack https://publicslack.com/slacks/fauna-community/invites/new https://publicslack.com/slacks/fauna-community/invites/new