Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We store 100-1000 GB of data in each wide table on our untrendy on-prem SQL server boxes. 10GB is peanuts. In fact, I propose (given the limitations suggested by the author) that DynamoDB may have NO practical uses worth exploring. If NoSQL is about scale, and it can't scale, what's it good for?

I can understand having to optimize your key space, but in this case it necessitates extreme premature optimization.



From my understanding, node is virtual nodes. This article on Cassandra should give some info - https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/2.1/cassandra/archite...


Each shard is 10GB. The unit of scale is a shard. You can have as many shards as you want.


It's one shard per node though, right? So you're talking about SERIOUS cost when you want to store _actual_ big data.


You don't pay per node. In fact, the concept of a node is not exposed at all. Each shard is technically on three nodes for high availability. You pay for provisioned capacity and data storage per GB.


DynamoDB is a multi-tenant service. There is no dedicated node for you. Each shard is replicated across 3 nodes and those nodes contain replicas of other shards/tables.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: