Hacker News Reader

Comment by thestepafter | Hacker News Reader

Would be interested to hear more about your opinion on why using a database is a mistake.

Using a datastore for which true master-master HA is at best a bolted-on afterthought when you explicitly want a zero-downtime system is a mistake in a pretty obvious way.

Using a datastore with a black box query planner that explicitly doesn't allow you to force particular indices (using hints or similar) is a more subtle mistake but will inevitably bite you eventually. Likewise a datastore that uses black-box MVCC and doesn't let you separate e.g. writing data from updating indices.

I meant using a database for more than relational read-heavy data queries. I would need to write a small book. Tl;dr the data model, communication model, locking model, and operational model all have specific limitations designed around a specific use case and straying from that case invites problems that need workarounds that create more problems.

I hear you on that, and can say that Postgres is incredibly capable at going beyond typical relational database workloads. One example are durable queues that are transactionally consistent with the rest of the database play a unique role in our architecture that would otherwise require more ceremony. More details here: https://getoban.pro

We are also working on shifting some workloads off of Postgres on to more appropriate systems as we scale, like logging. But we intentionally chose to minimize dependencies by pushing Postgres further to move faster, with migration plans ready as we continue to reach new levels of scale (e.g. using a dedicated log storage solution like elastic search or clickhouse).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com