Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lutger | Hacker News Reader

This is all true, important and often misunderstood, but beside the point made to which you reply.

There's a (sort of) objective trade-off to be made, but another dimension is how familiar you are with the solution and/or how quick can you implement it using documentation and examples.

If you happen to know exactly how to create a horizontally scalable microservice based hairball with nodejs, then maybe you are quicker with that than with some traditional django monolith using a nicely normalized sql database (or whatever).

In a startup, you are often always squeezed for time, so making the objectively right tradeoff for your context is usually secondary to the simple question of 'when can you ship?' If the scalable-yet-inflexible is what stack overflow abundantly recommends and documents, maybe this is quicker to get done now, whatever the consequences are on the longer run.

View on HN

Then maybe I just don't understand your post. To me it sounds like you say "FAANG-technology" is chosen because of documentation. But I don't think that the documentation of e.g. SQS is better than the postgres (if you can even compare the too).

If someone says "I choose X over Y because I used X before (or because X is better documented" then fair enough - but I rarely hear that as an argument when choosing "FAANG-technology".

That was exactly what ritzaco said (not me):

> If I want to copy FAANG or another startup, and set up an infinitely scalable queue-based architecture, I can find dozens of high quality guides, tutorials, white papers etc, showing me exactly how to do it.

I'm not sure about this either, though from reading typical developer blogs and listening to the hivemind, you do get the feeling that you must be scalable. Devs often don't really know when (usually not) that becomes important and how far the vast majority of apps can go with monoliths in big boxes (quite far).

Okay, if that is the context then I understand.

But my response would then be that this is a stupid example in the context of this whole submission because that submission talks about postgres and trying to get postgres to scale "infinitely" let alone fulfill other properties like extremely high uptime etc. that is just... insane. No one in their right mind tries to do that with postgres. It is one thing to do queueing with it but "infinitely scalable" is a totally different one.

Therefore I can only say: yeah, to set up "an infinitely scalable queue-based architecture" you should not use postgres and the author in the submission says the same thing.

> Devs often don't really know when (usually not) that becomes important and how far the vast majority of apps can go with monoliths in big boxes (quite far).

Right, they make the wrong trade-offs. That is exactly what I wanted to express with my response.

I often find that the tooling I have at work helps speed up the development of more complicated solutions. So saying that FAANG solutions are easy to use and you can be fast at is easy when you have that FAANG support. Even just non-FAANG but large enterprises allow for that, but for startup's is easy to forget how the environment (including tooling) helps speed up all of that work immensely.

So yeah, I find a lot of the more complicated solutions to be simple, but mostly because it's well supported and not by just me.

But that is not what we are discussing here. From the submission:

> There’s a good chance that you’re already using a relational database, and if that relational database is Postgres, you should consider it for queues before any other software

The point is, if you are already using postgres, then the question is not: should I use postgres for queueing and the rest or should I use postgres for the rest and a FAANG solution for queueing on top of it.

Now the thing is that the FAANG solutions are great in certain ways and allow you to scale a lot and have extremely high availability. But it comes at the cost, for examply those solutions don't support transactions like postgres does. So if you need those (and often you don't know in advance how the business of a startup develops) then now you have to build some technical solution on top of the FAANG solution which is much much slower and more complicated compared to doing it in postgres.

Even if you say that it's more difficult to setup and understand the queueing in postgres (and I agree), I would argue that in the end it is still faster because you don't need to setup and maintain all the infrastructure (yeah, even if it runs in the cloud) unless this is a prototyp and you don't care about security, documentation and all of that and throw it away in the end anyways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com