[HN Gopher] Latency Comparison: DynamoDB vs. FaunaDB vs. Redis ___________________________________________________________________ Latency Comparison: DynamoDB vs. FaunaDB vs. Redis Author : noahfschr Score : 26 points Date : 2021-04-13 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (news-app-two-omega.vercel.app) (TXT) w3m dump (news-app-two-omega.vercel.app) | ntoshev wrote: | Network latency is not accounted for: they use AWS lambda calling | DynamoDB / Redis in the same data center; Fauna endpoint is | somewhere else. | | Curious what Firebase latency would be in comparison, when called | from the same GCP data center or AWS. | aeyes wrote: | According to the blog post this site runs in AWS us-west-1. | With Fauna you don't know the data center but according to | their status page they have infrastructure in AWS us-west-2. | Latency from us-west-1 to us-west-2 is 25ms so you can subtract | that from the total time. | | Fauna claims to route your request to the nearest data center | so I'm interested in validating this. Seeing 400ms latency | where I'd expect <50ms is important to me, especially on Lambda | where you are billed waiting for the response. | wging wrote: | My suspicion is that this may not tell the full story. For | example, availability-wise I bet there are differences between | these databases. As just one example, I bet this person wasn't | running with a multi-AZ setup for Upstash, since | https://docs.upstash.com/overall/databasetypes says "Multi Zone | Replication" is a premium feature. Whereas DDB doesn't even let | you store your data in a single AZ, AFAIK (https://docs.aws.amazo | n.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...). | | (My understanding is shallow compared to real experts, but even | so I know this is a deep topic and this is only one example of | the type of thing you'd want to consider when figuring out | whether to take this comparison at face value.) | pier25 wrote: | I've been using Fauna for a year or so. | | What's slowing Fauna here are the global writes and the bad FQL | queries. | | Right now the code is doing a bunch of separate queries, but in | idiomatic FQL this would be done in a single transaction. | | Edit: | | I'm going to do a PR to update the FQL code if the author accepts | it. | noahfschr wrote: | Sure, I will. | jph wrote: | FaunaDB is doing more than Upstash and DynamoDB in the author's | examples, as the author describes in the related blog post: | | - FaunaDB is providing strong consistency and isolation; Upstash | and DynamoDB are providing eventual consistency. | | - FaunaDB is replicating the data worldwide and offering similar | access everywhere; Upstash and DynamoDB are deliberately | configured in the same AWS region as the lambda function. | k__ wrote: | DynamoDB can be used with strong consistency, would be | interesting if it doubles the latency. | [deleted] | k__ wrote: | Is this the price Fauna pays for its consistency guarantees? | noahfschr wrote: | probably. https://blog.upstash.com/latency-comparison#why-is- | faunadb-s... | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-13 23:00 UTC)