3 ms·
> Hosting files in S3 is much, much cheaper than running a live instance of PostgreSQL. If your app is running on premises and the DB is on cloud, you can also
by DeathArrow 3y ago
> Hosting files in S3 is much, much cheaper than running a live instance of PostgreSQL.
If your app is running on premises and the DB is on cloud, you can also move the DB on premises so the costs are lower.
If your app runs on cloud, too, then you already are paying for the cloud compute so you can just fire up an VM and install Postgres on that.
- stavros 3y agoIf your app is a static JS file, now your DB can also be static.
- electroly 3y agoIndeed, our RDBMS is on-prem; we'd never actually use RDS. This data's pages were hogging the cache leading to reduced performance for other unrelated tables, and SAN storage isn't particularly cheap or flexible. We wanted to get it out of our on-prem RDBMS. If you're over a hundred billion rows, it's time to think about whether your data belongs there. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. This data had an alternative and I took it. > If your app runs on cloud, too, then you already are paying for the cloud compute so you can just fire up an VM and install Postgres on that. This part doesn't make sense. If your app is on the cloud, you're paying for the cloud compute for the app servers. "Firing up a VM" for PostgreSQL isn't suddenly free.
- infamia 3y agoYou can absolutely do all of those things, but there is an intrinsic cost for someone to configure, manage, and monitor those things. SQLite will (generally speaking) have far less management overhead because of its relatively limited surface area (e.g., there is no database service).