4 ms·

I think the problem is that we're trying to take paradigms that are designed to be serverful (is that a word?) and shoe-horn them into working in a serverless w

by bradhe 3y ago

I think the problem is that we're trying to take paradigms that are designed to be serverful (is that a word?) and shoe-horn them into working in a serverless way.

nikita 3y ago
(Neon CEO). It's possible and here is the recipe: https://twitter.com/nikitabase/status/1725394843285766463 https://twitter.com/nikitabase/status/1725394843285766463
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  Always gotta watch what you say on Hacker News or the CEO of the company you're talking about might just arrive outta nowhere with the elbow drop of justice.
- qaq 3y ago
  It helps but does not fully solve it if I need PG to have 512 GB of memory buffers under load to have reasonable latency starting from 0 and going through a number of VM migrations to finally get to properly sized VM with 512 GB of hot data in memory gonna cause a ton of latency.
  - nikita 3y ago
    The buffers will be cached in remote storage - so it will just work likely. In the future we are considering separating the buffer pool from compute and turning off compute doesn't drop the buffer cache. It's a research project but PolarDB did that for AliCloud.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      "Remote buffers" sounds like it'd introduce a base level of latency anyway. Though computers are pretty fast these days (and RDMA exists), so if the pieces are in the same data centre and using good interconnects it's probably not going to make much of a practical difference.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- c0l0 3y ago
  ... which does not refute the parent post's statement ;)