3 ms·
The "disappointing" benchmark mentioned in the article is a shame for GigaOm who published it and for Microsoft who paid for it. They compare Citus with no HA t
by franckpachot 3y ago
The "disappointing" benchmark mentioned in the article is a shame for GigaOm who published it and for Microsoft who paid for it. They compare Citus with no HA to CockroachDB and YugabyteDB with replication factor 3 Multi-AZ, resilient to data center failure. And they run Citus on 16 cores (=32 vCPU) and the others on 16 vCPU.
But your point about "beefy machine" shows the real advantages of Distributed SQL. PostgreSQL and Citus needs downtime to save cost if you don't need that beefy machine all days all year. Scale up and down is downtime, as well as upgrades. Distributed SQL offers elasticity (no downtime to resize the cluster) and high availability (no downtime on failure or maintenance)
- AdamProut 3y agoRE: "Distributed SQL offers elasticity (no downtime resize"). I'm not sure this is as much of an advantage of distributed databases vs single host databases anymore. Some of the tech to move virtual machines between machines quickly (without dropping TCP connections) is pretty neat. Neon has a blog post about it here[1]. Aurora Serverless V2 does the same thing (but I can't find a detailed technical blog post talking about how it works). Your still limited by "one big host" but its no longer as big of a deal to scale your compute up/down within that limit. [1] https://neon.tech/blog/scaling-serverless-postgres https://neon.tech/blog/scaling-serverless-postgres