I have a medium-data database storing events (timestamps + some metadata, ~200gb). It currently lives on an Aurora postgres cluster. If this were rock-solid, my

I have a medium-data database storing events (timestamps + some metadata, ~200gb). It currently lives on an Aurora postgres cluster. If this were rock-solid, my application would be the perfect fit, I think. I have two major concerns: 1. I'd originally started on a managed solution (https://getconnect.io/ https://getconnect.io/). They promised scalability and reliability, but we were forced to move away when the queries would take upwards of thirty seconds, inserts would start failing, and we'd receive 503s. I estimate that my database (which, at the time, was almost two orders of magnitude smaller) was among their largest. Why should I trust Rockset with my data? 2. I can't find anything about performance, benchmarks, or any other information about how the service will behave in production. InfluxDB is an example of something that does a great job of this: their docs outline what Influx is good at, what it's not good at, what will make your queries slow, etc. Instead, Rockset has a how-to guide for building a FB messenger chat bot with CSVs. From their docs: > Rockset has a cloud-scale architecture. It can scale both compute and storage independent of one another. One one hand, you can have a small data set served by zillions of compute in parallel to make queries faster. On the other hand, you can have petabyte size data sets served by a small number of compute nodes. And, of course, you can have the entire spectrum in-between these two scenarios. What does that even _mean_? Sorry, Rockset, I'm going to need more than zillions of compute to convince me to move my business to you.