3 ms·
Couldn't they have just moved to Aurora DSQL and saved all the headache?
by rohan_ 2y ago
Couldn't they have just moved to Aurora DSQL and saved all the headache?
- levkk 2y agoWe actually found Aurora to be about 3x slower than community PG for small queries. That was back then, maybe things are better now. Migrating to another database (and Aurora is Postgres-compatible, it's not Postgres) is very risky when you've been using yours for years and know where the edge cases are.
- rednafi 2y agoThis! Postgres to pg-compatible DBs are never as smooth as they advertise it to be.
- sgarland 2y agoI’ve consistently found Aurora MySQL and PG to be slower than everything, including my 12 year old Dell R620s. You can’t beat data locality, and the 4/6 quorum requirement of Aurora combined with the physical distance kills any hope of speed.
- SahAssar 2y agoAurora is postgres but with a different storage layer, no? It uses the postgres engine, which other postgres-compatible databases like cockroach do not, right?
- tudorg 2y agoThat’s right, Aurora Postgres is quite close to vanilla Postgres. Aurora DSQL is a different story though. For a more scientific answer, there is this project: https://pgscorecard.com/ https://pgscorecard.com/ Note that Aurora scores 93% while Cockroach scores only 40%.
- SahAssar 2y agoI actually wasn't aware of Aurora DSQL, that's incredibly bad product naming.
- re-thc 2y ago> Aurora DSQL There isn't even pricing on it...