4 ms·
> But surely you need to track that elsewhere anyway? Why? If the S3 structure and listing is sufficient, I don't need to store anything else anywhere else. M
by kbolino 3y ago
> But surely you need to track that elsewhere anyway?
Why? If the S3 structure and listing is sufficient, I don't need to store anything else anywhere else.
Many use cases may involve other requirements that S3 can't meet, such as being able to find the same object via different keys, or being able to search through the metadata fields. However, if the requirements match up with S3's structure, then additional services are unnecessary and keeping them in sync with S3 is more hassle than it's worth.
- tjoff 3y agoI agree, but something as simple (in functionality) as that ought to be an edge-case. Not a defining feature of S3.
- dekhn 3y agoit's a property of the system that I, as an architect, would seriously consider as part of my system's design. I've worked with many systems where iterating over items in order starting from a prefix is extremely cheap (sstables).
- orf 3y agoIt’s fundamental to how S3 works and its ability to scale, so it is a defining feature of S3. If you think wider, a bucket itself is just a prefix.
- tjoff 3y agoFrom amazons perspective, sure! But that's not what we are discussing.