The top concern I've gotten from dev teams when proposing HA distributed postgres (e.g through RDS Aurora global) is that eventual consistency is not suitable for many workloads.
Does Neki solve for this, and if so how? My understanding of CAP theorem is that this basically requires some compromises around availability, but I'm curious as to what that looks like in practice here.
Assuming it works the same way as their MySQL product, Vitess:
The usual way to run it is that you partition your db based on something like a user, so that single user gets a consistent DB, but anything cross-shard may not be.
I know when I worked at Block, Cashapp was using Vitess and getting cross-shard DB writes down and functioning correctly was one of the major blockers to adoption. (though I just did tls management for vitess and didn't write any workloads on top of it, so my impression might be a bit off)
I love to see this but as a heavy Vitess/MySQL user I do fear the split focus from PlanetScale. Hoping to see continued improvements on the Vitess side as well.
Selfish doubts aside, congrats to Planetscale on the launch!
The page matches their name, it's extreme hype. I finally figured out what I'm going to call them since their name doesn't sit well with me: PlummetScale.
I see no mention of foreign keys, or any other constraints, across shards. If, as I suspect, they're not implemented, it would still be useful but at the level of Spanner 10 years ago.
The top concern I've gotten from dev teams when proposing HA distributed postgres (e.g through RDS Aurora global) is that eventual consistency is not suitable for many workloads.
Does Neki solve for this, and if so how? My understanding of CAP theorem is that this basically requires some compromises around availability, but I'm curious as to what that looks like in practice here.
Assuming it works the same way as their MySQL product, Vitess:
The usual way to run it is that you partition your db based on something like a user, so that single user gets a consistent DB, but anything cross-shard may not be.
I know when I worked at Block, Cashapp was using Vitess and getting cross-shard DB writes down and functioning correctly was one of the major blockers to adoption. (though I just did tls management for vitess and didn't write any workloads on top of it, so my impression might be a bit off)
Therefore, Consistency guarantees are based on implementing application-specific partitioning (correctly)?
Independent of the product, love the branding design for this page.
I love to see this but as a heavy Vitess/MySQL user I do fear the split focus from PlanetScale. Hoping to see continued improvements on the Vitess side as well.
Selfish doubts aside, congrats to Planetscale on the launch!
Obviously welcome more tools for Postgres and sharding but it’s a tough hill to climb against the hyper clouds. Best wishes to the team.
The page matches their name, it's extreme hype. I finally figured out what I'm going to call them since their name doesn't sit well with me: PlummetScale.
Pretty exciting to see a sharded Postgres product in the market.
The pitch is compelling. I wonder how many teams will be able to operate sharded database setups in production as a result of this.
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49645686
I see no mention of foreign keys, or any other constraints, across shards. If, as I suspect, they're not implemented, it would still be useful but at the level of Spanner 10 years ago.
Cross shard transactions are “coming soon”. So, this is just like having multiple postgres clusters.
Cross shard transactions are supported, but we don't have support for atomic 2pc cross shard transactions, its WIP