[HN Gopher] TiDB - cloud-native, distributed SQL database writte...
___________________________________________________________________
TiDB - cloud-native, distributed SQL database written in Go
Author : philonoist
Score : 26 points
Date : 2025-01-03 12:23 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| peterson_lock wrote:
| I was able to get a small TiDB cluster running in my homelab last
| night! Looking forward to using it :)
|
| Reference: https://docs.pingcap.com/tidb-in-
| kubernetes/stable/get-start...
| otterley wrote:
| TiDB is 8 years old now; what's new?
| willvarfar wrote:
| Hardly hear about TiDB. How is it faring and how does it stack up
| to more well know competition?
| xmichael909 wrote:
| Same as before, excellent when you little little data and
| limited transactions. Once things get big and you lose sync,
| everything goes to shit.
| sgarland wrote:
| They claimed they successfully onboarded a customer with 1 PB
| of data at KubeCon NA.
|
| I have strong doubts about distributed DBs in general, but I
| also can't see them blatantly lying in a talk.
| dangoodmanUT wrote:
| how do you have doubts when nearly every significant
| company is running one, and distributed DBs are
| consistently proven to be the most correct (e.g. FDB,
| TigerBeetle)?
| sgarland wrote:
| Sorry, should have clarified: I have doubts about their
| necessity (as I stated in another comment).
|
| Most tech companies have poor knowledge of proper data
| modeling and SQL, leading to poor schema design, and
| suboptimal queries. Combine that with the fact that
| networked storage (e.g. EBS) is the norm, and it's no
| wonder that people think they need another solution.
|
| The amount of QPS you can get out of a single DB is
| staggering when it's correctly designed, and on fast
| hardware with local NVMe disks (or has a faster
| distributed storage solution). Consider that a modern
| NVMe drive can quite easily deliver 1,000,000+ IOPS.
| jitl wrote:
| I hear through the grapevine they've got a bunch of companies
| using it. I think Airbnb migrated to it.
| srameshc wrote:
| I love these new distributed DBs. CockroachDB is one of them.
| Still I think a managed Postgres/MySQL is a better choice. My
| primary concern is how challenging will it be if you have to
| eventually move your data out to a RDBMS for cost or other
| reasons. Does anyone have any experience ? I am not talking
| enterprise scale but data about size of 50 - 100GB scale.
| convolvatron wrote:
| why do you think that would be harder? assume for the moment
| that the reader here is going to run at the effective rate of a
| single node and not that we're going to try to parallelize
| that. Assuming we have transaction isolation, that reader is
| going to get a consistent snapshot.
|
| a distributed database is potentially more complicated to
| operate, and optimize, and because its new and potentially has
| more sharp edges maybe less reliable (?) but the extraction of
| moderate sized datasets doesn't really seem to be an obvious
| failing.
| sgarland wrote:
| Distributed DBs and traditional RDBMS serve different purposes.
| Most - by which I mean the overwhelming majority - companies do
| not need a distributed DB, they need better schema and queries.
|
| My fear is companies without in-house RDBMS expertise see these
| products as a way to continue to avoid getting that expertise.
| eikenberry wrote:
| VC backed database company with a CLA on their "open source"
| project. Red flag. Is there a community fork yet?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-06 23:00 UTC)