undefined | Better HN

0 pointssgarland4mo ago0 comments

Except it isn’t nearly as fast as it claims [0]. And in real-world tests, I have never found it to beat RDS.

You can get an insane amount of performance out of a well-tuned MySQL or Postgres instance, especially if you’ve designed your schema to exploit your RDBMS’ strengths (e.g. taking advantage of InnoDB’s clustering index to minimize page fetches for N:M relationships).

And if you really need high performance, you use an instance with node-local NVMe storage (and deal with the ephemerality, of course).

0: https://hackmysql.com/are-aurora-performance-claims-true/

0 comments

belter4mo ago

Well the article you linked to....confirms that Aurora is faster than MySQL on equivalent hardware, especially for write-heavy workloads, just that the “5× faster” claim only holds under very specific benchmark conditions.

Also from the link...when MySQL is properly tuned, the performance gap narrows substantially but is still 1,5x to 3x for the workloads tested in the article something I would call massive.

sgarlandOP4mo ago

The benchmarks were just that - synthetic benchmarks. I’ve ran actual production workloads against both, and Aurora never won. IFF you have an incredibly write-heavy workload, and you have few to no secondary indices, then Aurora might win; I’d also suggest you reconsider your RDBMS choice.

Most workloads are somewhere between 90:10 to 98:2 reads:writes, and most tables have at least one (if not more) secondary indices.

You’re of course welcome to disagree, but speaking as a DBRE who has used both MySQL and Postgres, RDS and Aurora in production, I’m telling you that Aurora does not win on performance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse