4 ms·
I want to better understand the reasoning behind the "scale to zero" point that many people mention. only case I could think of is that businesses that want "s
by eightnoteight 3y ago
I want to better understand the reasoning behind the "scale to zero" point that many people mention.
only case I could think of is that businesses that want "scale to zero" have very low total expenditure on the database. is this the case for you as well?
because serverless without going to zero still solves a major problem for a lot of companies with some decent scale, where there is some decent traffic and its too hard to implement database autoscaling and most businesses have unequal traffic (daytime and nighttime etc,...)
- dalyons 3y agoYeah, can’t really see any overlap in the camps of folk who want “scale to zero” and those who want the “automatically horizontally sharded ginormous transaction scale” that this post is about.
- Tehnix 3y agoWhy not have both? That's exactly what DynamoDB offers, and people want the SQL equivalent promise of "it'll keep up no matter what scale you're at". The point is: You don't want to need to switch technology at a later stage, you'd like to build with the right technology from the get-go. I almost always go for DynamoDB first, since for small projects it's essentially free, and for huge projects I do not have to worry about the ops overhead that follows normal SQL databases. A lot of people also have traffic patterns that go: - Very high volume during the day - Almost no or little volume during the night when your users are sleeping Aurora Serverless v2 gets us closer to this for SQL, but does not scale to 0 so it's not too nice for the initial phases of projects.