[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)