4 ms·
The SQS vs Kinesis summary is particularly bad Kinesis has strict ordering but SQS does not? No. Kinesis has strict ordering PER SHARD. Which dilutes your th
by deanCommie 7y ago
The SQS vs Kinesis summary is particularly bad
Kinesis has strict ordering but SQS does not?
No.
Kinesis has strict ordering PER SHARD. Which dilutes your throughput, unlike SQS. And it has limitations on throughput in terms of total event size, which are different from SQS's 300 TPS for FIFO.
It's apples and oranges. More significant, this comparison really makes it seem like you should pick Kinesis for a simple starting project rather than SQS, which is the exact opposite of the truth. SQS is the simpler choice for 90% of the cases, and Kinesis is an advanced powerful tool for the other 10%
- naragon 7y agoAgreed, this has been my experience as well.
- mooreds 7y agoRight, and also SQS can have more than one consumer; I daresay N consumers is the most common scenario.
- snorkel 7y agoAlso Kinesis records are write-once read-many, where SQS messages are meant to be consumed (receive a message, do the task, delete the message) Kinesis is for streaming data, and SQS is for job queues.