10 ms·
Though Postgres is great, I personally disagree. If you're starting a brand new project now I think you should use something redundant and distributed like Cock
by endisneigh 4y ago
Though Postgres is great, I personally disagree. If you're starting a brand new project now I think you should use something redundant and distributed like CockroachDB or Vitess.
- theptip 4y agoThis seems like overkill to me; a single Postgres master with replication/standby gets you very far. Why pay the ops burden of Cockroach when it buys you nothing in your first N years of business pre-PMF? Concretely speaking most startups should be using RDS or whatever hosted Postgres their cloud provider offers, not running their own. I think it’s sensible to use what one knows best, but for default advice to others I think ”simplest viable option” is generally better.
- heywherelogingo 4y ago"Why pay the ops burden of Cockroach" - sounds like you haven't used it. Considerably easier than postgres.
- jpdb 4y ago> a single Postgres master with replication/standby gets you very far So does a distributed database. A primary/replica has an ops burden too, and measuring that complexity is subjective. With primary/replica you still take downtime during failover, you need to make sure you're testing the failover, upgrades aren't zero downtime in a lot of cases, etc. You're essentially treating your database as a pet and a clustered option is much more cattle vs pet. This saves you time to develop other features (including working on reliability -- the most important feature)