• TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    we’ve replaced our $10k/month Aurora instances with a $200/month Elastic Block Storage (EBS) volume.

    Lol, i’m sure just refactoring it and using a different service could have lowered that price significantly.

    The description of their data says “relational database” to me, but don’t murder me for using such an unpopular phrase!

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      They never would have been able to get the same performance from any solution that incorporates a general purpose database.

      Their requirements/explicitly-not-required-ments include that it’s fine to drop 1s of data. That would be an insane proposition for any other database. Also their read/write rates and latency requirements are unusual to say the least.

      It’s the same thing as tiger beetle. Ridiculously narrow domains allow for ridiculous performance improvements compared to of-the-shelf solutions.

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          A new database specifically designed for financial transactions.

          I’m not an expert on finance software, so I can’t critically assert how good they really are. But they claim much much higher throughput than traditional databases, higher fault tolerance, self healing networks if several replicas are running, etc.
          From a purely technical standpoint it’s interesting for being written in zig. Because the database scope is so narrow they know exactly how much memory they will need on startup and just allocate all required memory on startup and never allocate more, nor free the aquired memory.