3 ms·
Tbh, That's why for our new projects we've completely ignored relational databases. They're a pain in the ass to manage and scale poorly. DynamoDB, on the othe
by mxz3000 5y ago
Tbh, That's why for our new projects we've completely ignored relational databases. They're a pain in the ass to manage and scale poorly.
DynamoDB, on the other hand, trivially scales to thousands (and more!) of TPS and doesn't come with footguns. If it works, then it'll continue to work forever.
- de_keyboard 5y agoHow do you handle cases where strict synchronization is required? Banking app is a classic example.
- tpxl 5y agoThis is funny to me since modern relational databases can get thousands and more TPS in a single node. My dev machine reports 16k TPS on a table with 100M rows with 100 clients. > pgbench -c 100 -s 100 -T 20 -n -U postgres > number of transactions actually processed: 321524 > latency average = 6.253 ms > tps = 15991.775957
- josephg 5y agoYep. And 98% of software written today will never need to scale beyond 10k TPS at the database layer. Most software is small. And of the software that does need to go faster than that, most of the time you can get away with read replicas. Or there are obvious sharding keys. Even when thats not the case, it usually ends up being a minority of the tables and collections that need additional speed. If you don't believe me, look through the HN hiring thread sometime and notice how few product names you recognise. Most products will never need to scale like GMail or Facebook.