Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Aurora DSQL

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#71

Post by dbbk »

joshstrange wrote: post #55

I won't even consider this without pricing, I can't imagine how anyone could. Serverless Aurora is stupid-expensive so I can't imagine this is going to be cheap but I keep hunting for that perfect DB that can scale to 0 (or very low) and be priced well. Right now neon.tech is what I'm using and I'm very happy but this looks like it would be interesting IF the pricing is good.

I'm also on Neon. Seems like the primary benefit of this would be multi-region support, which Neon doesn't have. But I do wonder if multi-AZ is actually just enough, has there ever really been a time when all AZs have gone down?

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#72

Post by dbbk »

qaq wrote: post #70

Virtually unlimited scale :) Maximum storage GB per cluster: 100GB Maximum size of all data modified within a write transaction 10 MiB Max: 10K rows per transaction

100GB doesn't seem very unlimited

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#73

Post by [deleted] »

jcmfernandes wrote: post #69
e1g wrote: post #34

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...

> No foreign key constraints Wat?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#74

Post by bradhe »

zokier wrote: post #65

Can Amazon please get RDS product management ducks in a row? You got RDS For PostgreSQL, Aurora PostgreSQL (provisioned), Aurora Serverless v1, Aurora Serverless v2, Aurora PostgreSQL Limitless Database, Aurora Global Database, and now Aurora DSQL (with PostgreSQL compatibility). It's very confusing, the docs are confusing, and the even the tools are confused. I think this is pretty big contrast to something like S3…

RDS generally is a massive, massive business inside AWS. I'd imagine the politics and organization generally is an absolute nightmare.

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#75

Post by bobnamob »

dbbk wrote: post #72
qaq wrote: post #70

Virtually unlimited scale :) Maximum storage GB per cluster: 100GB Maximum size of all data modified within a write transaction 10 MiB Max: 10K rows per transaction

100GB doesn't seem very unlimited

While I love to take potshots, the yes(configurable) next to that 100gb does some heavy lifting.

I imagine that number is tunable up to multi digit tb if you your monthly bill is worth Jassy's attention

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

The more interesting (i.e. constraining) limits are transaction size (both row count and data size) and transaction time, which aren't configurable.

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#76

Post by mdaniel »

PowerfulWizard wrote: post #30

Very interesting. My dream is to have something like this, a KV-store, a blob store, and pubsub all behind the same interface.

"like this" meaning you want wire PG compatibility, so you'd do something like this?

  UPDATE kv SET value = 'alpha' WHERE key = 'beta.charlie';
  UPDATE s3 SET value = $b64$good luck$b64$ WHERE key = '/some/s3/path';
  LISTEN whatever;

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#77

Post by xuancanh »

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...

AWS tends to prioritize performance and scalability over functionality, which is reflected in the design of DynamoDB, SimpleDB, and now DSQL. I'm also not a big fan of this style. It doesn't give customers the flexibility to choose their own trade-offs like Spanner does and assumes that customers can't make these kinds of decisions on their own.

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#78

Post by timmg »

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.

> Sooo they're finally launching a Spanner contender?

It may be even better in one important way: (if I understand correctly) for Spanner, you have to provision servers -- and keep them running. So GCP version of Spanner really makes no sense for anything that isn't huge.

This sounds more like "Spanner as a Service" -- which is something I've always wanted (for my hobby projects, no less :)

Unless I misundertood, anyway.

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#79

Post by nilamo »

Edwinr95 wrote: post #41
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But a smaller CRUD app wouldn't need "virtually unlimited scale". I'm very curious what their target audience is.

Possibly a game server? Between matchmaking, leaderboards, achievements, you'll never be updating 10k rows at once...

Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL

#80

Post by korkybuchek »

zokier wrote: post #65

Can Amazon please get RDS product management ducks in a row? You got RDS For PostgreSQL, Aurora PostgreSQL (provisioned), Aurora Serverless v1, Aurora Serverless v2, Aurora PostgreSQL Limitless Database, Aurora Global Database, and now Aurora DSQL (with PostgreSQL compatibility). It's very confusing, the docs are confusing, and the even the tools are confused. I think this is pretty big contrast to something like S3…

> It's very confusing, the docs are confusing, and the even the tools are confused.

Not to worry -- you can use Rufus...uh "Q"....uhh...Nova...to summarize the docs into a decision tree on which confusing choice to use!

Post reply on HN