3 ms·
CQRS is a great pattern. But like any pattern ist should not be applied system-wide. It's not a fit, imo, as a system architecture. It's more a subsystem desig
by danielovichdk 6y ago
CQRS is a great pattern. But like any pattern ist should not be applied system-wide.
It's not a fit, imo, as a system architecture. It's more a subsystem design where you apply it to something which has many writes and a eventual consistent read-store, which can of course be built from the write-store. That doesn't really matter.
This can aslo easily be done without adding event sourcing, and the two does not per se go hand in hand.
The key point being that you sometimes cannot build a view "fast enough", based on data which is constantly entering the system. So the system with in the CQRS design, which handles a query is very important to design based on this.
I see it as a pattern that really helps you to perform on the read/query load due to the almost impossibility to make a query perform over a massive amount of commands/writes
- nickbauman 6y agoPrecisely my take too. Maybe we're even right?! My sense is the crux is that you make explicit with CQRS is that you can offload reads to read replicas as long as you're OK with the read replicas being a bit more behind in the writes. Which gives you greater scalability like you say.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dsies 6y agoYour sense is totally right and to boil it down further - you have to be OK with your system being eventually consistent.