[flagged]
Amazon Aurora DSQL
121–130 of 146 posts
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#122Can 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…
Is that really the case?
It appears to be a recent generational trend to openly flaunt one's ignorance...Admit you've never read the documentation but prefer to "learn on the job," criticizing Certifications, and having no patience for attending formal training.
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
* RDS is a managed relational database service. You got a database? We'll run it in the cloud for you. Exact same bits and bytes as you're running locally. * Aurora is Amazon's own relational database. You can't run it yourself, only with Amazon. It can pretend to be either Postgres or MySQL. And it'll be cheaper and faster and have higher availability. But it won't be the exact same bits and bytes as your own Postgr…
> But it uses atomic clocks and shit to cheat the cap theorem It is public information?
[deleted]
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
* RDS is a managed relational database service. You got a database? We'll run it in the cloud for you. Exact same bits and bytes as you're running locally. * Aurora is Amazon's own relational database. You can't run it yourself, only with Amazon. It can pretend to be either Postgres or MySQL. And it'll be cheaper and faster and have higher availability. But it won't be the exact same bits and bytes as your own Postgr…
> But it uses atomic clocks and shit to cheat the cap theorem It is public information?
Only you, the person posting and the 20,000 in Vegas yesterday know about it:
See at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/LY7m5LQliAo?t=3507
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say this as though the kind of people interested in a serverless distributed SQL product know what FK Constraints are, let alone have interest in using them.
This but unironically - if I’m in the market for a geo distributed hyper scale DB, I genuinely and sincerely have no interest in foreign key constraints. They are pretty much useless, if not actively harmful, at scale.
Disagree heavily that they’re useless at scale. Both PlanetScale and Citus support them (though the former doesn’t support it on sharded DBs yet), as well as TiDB (alpha), and Yugabyte.
As far as performance hits go, I guarantee I could find a half dozen other, larger problems that would have a bigger impact than disabling FK constraints.
It is of course possible to maintain referential integrity without them, but it requires much more diligence from devs, and I have yet to see it implemented well anywhere.
Until a single DB instance is serving well in excess of 100K QPS, I wouldn’t be concerned with the impact of FK constraints. Let RDBMS do what it’s good at – keeping your data safe.
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cough, not exactly: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/userguide/wor...
Why would this product having a subset of postgresql features make it less portable? If anything, that makes it more portable
Not if you're an existing postgres user considering DSQL - then it's effectively an entirely different database. Compatibility goes both ways.
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
* RDS is a managed relational database service. You got a database? We'll run it in the cloud for you. Exact same bits and bytes as you're running locally. * Aurora is Amazon's own relational database. You can't run it yourself, only with Amazon. It can pretend to be either Postgres or MySQL. And it'll be cheaper and faster and have higher availability. But it won't be the exact same bits and bytes as your own Postgr…
>Aurora is Amazon's own relational database. You can't run it yourself, only with Amazon. It can pretend to be either Postgres or MySQL. And it'll be cheaper and faster and have higher availability. But it won't be the exact same bits and bytes as your own Postgres, so there's some risks. That doesn't ring true to me. From my understanding rds aurora mostly replaces the storage engines of these DBs and the frontent m…
You're spot on. GP is repeating the common misconception that "Aurora" is a distinct, from-the-ground-up relational database system which can "pretend" to be either MySQL or Postgres by reimplementing their protocols/front-end from scratch. But that isn't the case at all.
In reality, Aurora MySQL is clearly heavily based on the MySQL codebase, but with major changes specifically to InnoDB's persistence and MVCC layers. Aurora MySQL implements a physical replication system using shared storage, undo, and redo logging. The rest is otherwise compatible with MySQL because it is using a lot of MySQL code.
I haven't read up on Aurora Postgres, but I'd bet it's something similar being applied to the Postgres codebase.
It's entirely possible the custom storage components may share some common code between Aurora MySQL and Aurora Postgres, but a custom storage layer alone isn't a "relational database" which "pretends" to be other DBs. (In contrast, it appears that DSQL actually might be that – a custom system with a reimplementation of Postgres wire protocol.)
Not trying to knock Aurora btw, it's really interesting technology and is quite an achievement by Amazon. But the constant confusion about what Aurora even is creates some support burdens in the DB ecosystem.
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a smaller CRUD app wouldn't need "virtually unlimited scale". I'm very curious what their target audience is.
I don't know, I manage a PHP app with about 10K users. If it doesn't cost much more, just paying to have the peace of mind that I never need to think about it again as my app grows, would not be a bad trade. This is assuming, of course, that the price is not extortionate.
In case it scales to Facebook's scale. Better safe than sorry.
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#129Can 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…
[deleted]
Re: Amazon Aurora DSQL
#130Just 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...
[deleted]