4 ms·
why do you think that would be harder? assume for the moment that the reader here is going to run at the effective rate of a single node and not that we're goin
by convolvatron 2y ago
why do you think that would be harder? assume for the moment that the reader here is going to run at the effective rate of a single node and not that we're going to try to parallelize that. Assuming we have transaction isolation, that reader is going to get a consistent snapshot.
a distributed database is potentially more complicated to operate, and optimize, and because its new and potentially has more sharp edges maybe less reliable (?) but the extraction of moderate sized datasets doesn't really seem to be an obvious failing.
- std_reply 2y agoI would argue the opposite, distributed databases are much easier to operate at large scale. Truly online distributed DDL, at least in TIDB, strong consistency etc. People who bang on about Postgres replication have rarely setup replication in Postgres themselves and that too in the 100a of Pb scale. MySQL replication works well and can be scaled more easily (relative to Postgres) but has its own problems. eg., DDL is still a nightmare, lag is a real problem, usually masked by async replication. But then eventual consistency makes the application developers life more complicated.