4 ms·
Given that sharding has become a pretty mature practice, is it still worth considering the NewSQL solutions like CRDB, Yugabyte, and TiDB for the sake of auto s
by hintymad 3y ago
Given that sharding has become a pretty mature practice, is it still worth considering the NewSQL solutions like CRDB, Yugabyte, and TiDB for the sake of auto sharding, given that these NewSQL databases usually trade throughput and latency for auto-sharding and multi-region support? Another added cost is learning how to operate NewSQL databases, assuming one is already familiar with either MySQL or Postgres.
- emmanueloga_ 3y agoIn the OP they said they built their own sharding solution because it was risky to move to a different (newsql) solution and they already had sharding expertise with PG. I think if starting from scratch it makes sense to look at these newsql DBs that are built to horizontally scale from the very beginning.
- brigadier132 3y agoSharding mysql and postgres has been a shitshow at every company I've worked at.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoWhy? How did they shard?
- hintymad 3y agoThanks. This is kinda of information I look for. Could you give more specifics? Why were they shit shows? If the tables are naturally shardable, say by user ID as described in the Figma's case, would the situation be different?