4 ms·
Yep, the AWS cost footprint of this system is eye-watering. The compute spend is 2x the RDS spend! Can't say too much, but it's Financial Services related.
by cutthegrass2 5y ago
Yep, the AWS cost footprint of this system is eye-watering. The compute spend is 2x the RDS spend!
Can't say too much, but it's Financial Services related.
- exikyut 5y agoAh, a gigantic time series event firehose. (That was what I was curious about.) I guess this cues the stereotypical "have you looked at kdb+" question, then, which you've probably already fielded :) (https://kx.com https://kx.com) IIUC, kdb+ does in fact have a real DB hiding in it, and it's not all just "weird programming language" - but it does seem to require/prefer a reasonable amount of buy-in to the way it does things to be valuable. I guess the lateral question is whether its performance obsession extends to smaller on-disk footprint, and whether the savings would be worth throwing out all the the existing Aurora integration work. (Answer: very probably not.)