131–140 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postgres is the database God himself would have made.
Like, I don't want to fanboy, but it's _hard_ to find a use case that postgres can't handle at small to medium (i.e. 90% of projects) scale.
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…
Postgres and Spanner do different things, in different ways, with different costs, risks, and implications. You could "just use" anything that is completely different and slightly cheaper. You could use a GitHub repository and just store your records as commits, for free, that's plenty cheap and works for small projects. But not really the same thing, is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly: I have to provision for peak throughput on Spanner. Average throughput is much lower than the peak throughput, so I'm doubtful of seeing savings no Spanner. (But I bet that Spanner is much easier than DynamoDB to develop with...)
You can scale Spanner up/down based on demand although there is a lag time with it. I built a system that relies on a high-performance database and tested with both AWS DynamoDB and Google Cloud Spanner (see disclaimer) and was able to scale Google Cloud Spanner much higher than AWS DynamoDB. DynamoDB is limited to 1000 WRUs per node, and there isn't an obvious way to get more than 100 nodes per table, so you're limi…
If only someone could actually run and publish comparison benchmarks, but DeWitt clause by Spanner makes it impossible.
Can you go into more detail on this? I assumed almost everyone using systems like this that tout scalability was doing benchmarks.
> 7. Benchmarking. Customer may conduct benchmark tests of the Services (each a "Test"). Customer may only publicly disclose the results of such Tests if (a) the public disclosure includes all necessary information to replicate the Tests, and (b) Customer allows Google to conduct benchmark tests of Customer's publicly available products or services and publicly disclose the results of such tests. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Customer may not do either of the following on behalf of a hyperscale public cloud provider without Google's prior written consent: (i) conduct (directly or through a third party) any Test or (ii) disclose the results of any such Test.
It looks like that is less restrictive than it used to be. I found a blog post from last year mentioning an additional requirement to obtain Google's prior written consent prior to publishing (for all customers, not just fellow cloud providers) which no longer is included. https://cube.dev/blog/dewitt-clause-or-can-you-benchmark-a-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean "can't afford to just use postgres"? I thought postgres cost per query in many cases is cheaper than competitors.
> What do you mean "can't afford to just use postgres"? if I have 10TB of hot data, can I afford two machines with 10T of RAM each? how about 100T? > I thought postgres cost per query in many cases is cheaper than competitors. that's not really a useful metric without size/latency/etc attached to it, being cheap for 0.1qps might be fine for a YC company but that's no good for my successful company etc
But a droplet with a Postgres db is nearly free, and seriously performant. And for 65/month, you can get a VERY beefy Hetzner server. You’ll have to wade through the crazy thicket that is the menu of cloud offerings. I gave that one look, and decided I might as well give up and learn the basics of Linux admin once and apply it for life.
How’s the customer service experience?