2 ms·
They claim 4x faster against vanilla postgres for "commercial workloads" so it sounds really impressive. > I wonder if there are performance tradeoffs sometime
by sa46 4y ago
They claim 4x faster against vanilla postgres for "commercial workloads" so it sounds really impressive.
> I wonder if there are performance tradeoffs sometimes leading to slower than vanilla postgres?
Speculation: alloydb probably has both a row store and a column store and some fancy logic to decide which one to use. That's usually what HTAP means.
In very broad strokes, columnar data stores struggle if you select many columns.
- cavisne 4y agoNot really speculation, its mentioned in the article. Theres not really any free lunch here, vanilla postgres is optimized to perform well within the constraints of a single scale-up host, minimizing storage usage as much as possible. These Aurora style systems instead take the assumption that storage is relatively cheap in a cloud environment, and likewise with any compute task that can be scaled out instead of up. So move as much as possible out of the scale-up instance to scale-out storage and compute. Additionally Google is claiming their system is better than Aurora because google has a distributed filesystem, where AWS only has block storage (tied to specific compute) and object storage (much worse performance).
- rektide 4y ago> and likewise with any compute task that can be scaled out instead of up. So move as much as possible out of the scale-up instance to scale-out storage and compute. This was very much the main lesson I got reading up on DataDog's third-gen event storage system Husky[1]. Great read. [1] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/introducing-husky/ https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/introducing-husky... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31416843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31416843 (185 points, 9d ago, 15 comments)