But a smaller CRUD app wouldn't need "virtually unlimited scale".
I'm very curious what their target audience is.
Re:Amazon Aurora DSQL
by gjsman-1000 on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @02:06PM
(#42309958)
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.
Re:Amazon Aurora DSQL
by funcDropShadow on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @11:27AM
(#42319087)
In case it scales to Facebook's scale. Better safe than sorry.
Possibly a game server? Between matchmaking, leaderboards, achievements, you'll never be updating 10k rows at once...
Re:Amazon Aurora DSQL
by happymellon on Thursday December 05, 2024 @05:41AM
(#42326846)
I work with a lot of financial services applications, and they are most definitely in the "simple CRUD" with regards to the database realm, but with extremely high throughput and multiregional.
Having it be Postgres compatible is the big selling point.
Who else would use it? Not sure, gaming perhaps?
Re:Amazon Aurora DSQL
by everfrustrated on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @02:01PM
(#42309890)
>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
Isolation can be quite important. I work with a micro services architecture, where we assign a database per service.
That makes it very easy to manage access to sensitive data.
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...