3 ms·
Well the article you linked to....confirms that Aurora is faster than MySQL on equivalent hardware, especially for write-heavy workloads, just that the “5× fast
by belter 11mo ago
Well the article you linked to....confirms that Aurora is faster than MySQL on equivalent hardware, especially for write-heavy workloads, just that the “5× faster” claim only holds under very specific benchmark conditions.
Also from the link...when MySQL is properly tuned, the performance gap narrows substantially but is still 1,5x to 3x for the workloads tested in the article something I would call massive.
- sgarland 11mo agoThe benchmarks were just that - synthetic benchmarks. I’ve ran actual production workloads against both, and Aurora never won. IFF you have an incredibly write-heavy workload, and you have few to no secondary indices, then Aurora might win; I’d also suggest you reconsider your RDBMS choice. Most workloads are somewhere between 90:10 to 98:2 reads:writes, and most tables have at least one (if not more) secondary indices. You’re of course welcome to disagree, but speaking as a DBRE who has used both MySQL and Postgres, RDS and Aurora in production, I’m telling you that Aurora does not win on performance.