Amazon Aurora DSQL • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#31

Post by asah » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:42 PM UTC

steepben wrote: post #24

slackerIII wrote: post #14

The only announcement I want from AWS about databases is that the price for RDS is going down. Not that they have new chip that is more expensive but offers better price/performance, but that my bill is actually going to drop. I don't trust them enough to use non-portable technology like this until they give me confidence they are committed to lowering prices.

It's Postgres compatible, so not exactly non-portable

Cough, not exactly:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#32

Post by asah » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:42 PM UTC

nextworddev wrote: post #6

politelemon wrote: post #4

I am confused, what is the difference between Aurora DSQL and Aurora Serverless? https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/

Aurora might be tied to region

Aurora is much more compatible:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#33

Post by hobs » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

steepben wrote: post #18

taldo wrote: post #15

Sooo they're finally launching a Spanner contender? I'm itching to read more details into what this actually is under the marketing blab.

There's a blog on the technical details here: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/introducing-amazon-aur...

The most interesting page is always quotas and limits: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/CHA...

Seeing the No to configurable for some of the settings is the most telling hard limits that we can see up front.

Some Very Noteable ones are: Maximum size of all data modified within a write transaction: 10 MiB Maximum transaction time: 5 minutes

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#34

Post by e1g » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

Just tried a quick test cluster -

  Identifies as PG 16.5
  No views/triggers/sequences
  No foreign key constraints
  No extensions
  No NOTIFY ("ERROR:  Function pg_notify not supported")
  No nested transactions
  No json(b)

Unsupported PG features are now online https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#35

Post by everfrustrated » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

Postgres compatibility depends a bit on what you rely on. This doesn't appear to be postgres under the hood, more wire-compatible.

>Aurora DSQL is PostgreSQL compatible, which means that it provides identical behavior for most supported features, identical query results for all SQL features, and supports many popular PostgreSQL drivers and tools with minor configuration changes. Supported SQL expressions return identical data in query results, including sort order, scale and precision for numeric operations, and equivalence for string operations. With a few documented exceptions, such as synchronous replication, no-lock concurrency control, and asynchronous DDL execution, Aurora DSQL behaves comparably to PostgreSQL.

Aurora DSQL supports core relational features like ACID transactions, secondary indexes, joins, insert, and updates. See Supported SQL expressions for an overview of supported SQL features.

Aurora DSQL doesn't support all PostgreSQL features. For more information, see Unsupported PostgreSQL features.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

No pricing that I can find

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#36

Post by Edwinr95 » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:52 PM UTC

I find it to be super limited, and I'm sort of struggling to see the point given all these constraints.

No temporary tables, no foreign keys, no views, no more than 10k rows in a transaction.

Except for some basic wire compatibility with the postgres protocol, I'd hardly call this a "database", and more a key-value store.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#37

Post by Andys » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:54 PM UTC

chikinpotpi wrote: post #16

So... its like cockroach db but with the added feature of more vendor lock in?

Like cockroachdb but with REPEATABLE READ instead of SERIALIZABLE as the default and only option.

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#38

Post by gjsman-1000 » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 6:56 PM UTC

Edwinr95 wrote: post #36

I find it to be super limited, and I'm sort of struggling to see the point given all these constraints. No temporary tables, no foreign keys, no views, no more than 10k rows in a transaction. Except for some basic wire compatibility with the postgres protocol, I'd hardly call this a "database", and more a key-value store. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

> Except for some basic wire compatibility with the postgres protocol, I'd hardly call this a "database", and more a key-value store.

Hopefully that keeps the pricing reasonable. :)

But seriously, for a smaller CRUD app, this could be sufficient, even "magical," if the price is right. For my part though, the lack of multiple databases per cluster puts multi-tenant systems completely off the table. Now that you mention it, I almost wonder if this is a giant hack on top of Valkey/Redis...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#39

Post by MapleWalnut » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

taldo wrote: post #15

Sooo they're finally launching a Spanner contender? I'm itching to read more details into what this actually is under the marketing blab.

Spanner provides serializability. It seems like DSQL only guarantees "repeatable read".

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#40

Post by everfrustrated » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #38

Edwinr95 wrote: post #36

I find it to be super limited, and I'm sort of struggling to see the point given all these constraints. No temporary tables, no foreign keys, no views, no more than 10k rows in a transaction. Except for some basic wire compatibility with the postgres protocol, I'd hardly call this a "database", and more a key-value store. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...

> Except for some basic wire compatibility with the postgres protocol, I'd hardly call this a "database", and more a key-value store. Hopefully that keeps the pricing reasonable. :) But seriously, for a smaller CRUD app, this could be sufficient, even "magical," if the price is right. For my part though, the lack of multiple databases per cluster puts multi-tenant systems completely off the table. Now that you mentio…

>the lack of multiple databases per cluster

I don't think that will matter. This feels much more like DynamoDB where you're charged for GB used/stored and no infra cost, so no reason to nest databases