111–120 of 371 posts
but as always: Are you sure your data doesn't fit in PostgreSQL? You should probably try PostgreSQL first.
don't bother with mongo or mysql or dynamo or cassandra or bigtable or spanner or ... until your lack of profitability or size means you can't afford to just use postgres.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I will say that it does show a vote of confidence to say that Photos, Gmail and Ads use GCP infra, I'm not sure? I guess I'm mostly not sure what "gcp infra" means there. The blog post says "Spanner is used ubiquitously inside of Google, supporting services such as; Ads, Gmail and Photos." But there's google-internal spanner, and gcp spanner. A service using spanner at Google isn't necessarily using gcp. (No clue a…
Surely in a post about Google Cloud Spanner, all examples mentioned use Google Cloud Spanner? It would be moot listing them as examples if they would not: so my assumption is they are all using GCP infra already for Spanner. I really want to give Google the benefit of the doubt: but it doesn't help that they did not write that eg Gmail is using "Cloud Spanner." They wrote that it uses Spanner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the skepticism, but these core SaaS offerings tend to have a much longer support life than consumer products. Google’s Bigtable is still around as a cloud offering, and it’s almost 20 years old at this point. Spanner is used for a lot of internal Google services, too. Spanner has basically been eating all the other databases Google uses internally. Nom nom nom, every database that used to be something else is n…
Remember AppEngine?
Cool, too bad I can't rely on Google suddenly deprecating this service.
“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
> What would have perhaps been a more fair comparison is to share the peak load that Google services running on GCP generated on Spanner, and not the sum of their cloud platform. Not necessarily about volume of transactions, but this is similar to one of my pet-peeves with statements that use aggregated numbers of compute power. "Our system has great performance, dealing 5 billion requests per second" means nothing i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postgres is a piece of software. Cloud Spanner/Dynamo etc are managed services. It makes no sense to directly compare one with the other.
Sure, You can compare Cloud SQL vs Cloud Spanner and RDS vs Dynamo, but it makes more sense to just say "Postgres" and assume that the reader can figure out that it means "Whatever managed postgres service you want to use". The entire point is that every cloud provider has a managed postgres offering, and there's no vendor lock-in. Though, technically, Dynamo does have a docker image you could run in other cloud prov…
There's a reason why Google installed and built their own atomic clocks and put them in their datacenters, it is to facilitate global timekeeping for this type of services. Most likely 99.9% of the time this type of database is overkill, and also likely way more expensive than you need.
https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/true-time-external-con...
And for many projects, Postgres is still cheaper than both. Having used both, I would much, much rather do the work to fit my project in Postgres/CockroachDB than use either Spanner or DynamoDB, which have WAY more footguns. Not to mention sudden cost spikes, vendor lock in, and god knows what else. AWS and GCP (and Azure, and Oracle cloud, and bare Kubernetes via an operator, and...) support Postgres really well. Ju…
99% of the projects dont need dynamodb/spanner/ScyllaDB
I think the only thing I pay for is API Gateway, and that's around $2 a month max.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your mileage may vary, but I think in majority of the cases Fargate is going to be significantly more expensive than Lambda.
But at low request volumes, either is a rounding error to a medium size enterprise, and for personal projects IMO Lambda is a huge PITA.
“ According to the Amazon Prime Day blog post, DynamoDB processes 126 million queries per second at peak. Spanner on the other hand processes 3 billion queries per second at peak, which is more than 20x higher, and has more than 12 exabytes of data under management.” This comparison seems to be not exactly fair? Amazon’s 126 million queries per second was purely for Amazon-related services serving Prime Day generatin…
Frankly it's a bit weird to see this kind of dick measuring in a product blog post from the "Director of Engineering" :/