Comment by valenterry
3 years ago
Scalability comes at a price. Unless you need it, it makes you less flexible. And that is exactly what you don't want to be as a startup.
For instance, if you use postgres with a low load, it is almost trivial to migrate schemas, add new constraints, do analytics etc.
If you use SQS, Cassandra, whatever, then you now get scalability/availability but it becomes much more time-consuming to change things if you figure out that your original design doesn't work. Say the business comes and says "please add constraint X. All users of type foo must never combined value bar at the same time."
It is possible to implemented that without postgres, but it is not easy or simple, especially if you need to make changes.
Therefore, my take is that you either use postgres to stay flexible or you use both postgres and something else on top of it when you know that you won't have to change things. Of course this means additional infrastructure/maintenance overhead.
In the end it's always a trade-off, you just need to know when to trade which thing off against what.
This is all true, important and often misunderstood, but beside the point made to which you reply.
There's a (sort of) objective trade-off to be made, but another dimension is how familiar you are with the solution and/or how quick can you implement it using documentation and examples.
If you happen to know exactly how to create a horizontally scalable microservice based hairball with nodejs, then maybe you are quicker with that than with some traditional django monolith using a nicely normalized sql database (or whatever).
In a startup, you are often always squeezed for time, so making the objectively right tradeoff for your context is usually secondary to the simple question of 'when can you ship?' If the scalable-yet-inflexible is what stack overflow abundantly recommends and documents, maybe this is quicker to get done now, whatever the consequences are on the longer run.
Then maybe I just don't understand your post. To me it sounds like you say "FAANG-technology" is chosen because of documentation. But I don't think that the documentation of e.g. SQS is better than the postgres (if you can even compare the too).
If someone says "I choose X over Y because I used X before (or because X is better documented" then fair enough - but I rarely hear that as an argument when choosing "FAANG-technology".
That was exactly what ritzaco said (not me):
> If I want to copy FAANG or another startup, and set up an infinitely scalable queue-based architecture, I can find dozens of high quality guides, tutorials, white papers etc, showing me exactly how to do it.
I'm not sure about this either, though from reading typical developer blogs and listening to the hivemind, you do get the feeling that you must be scalable. Devs often don't really know when (usually not) that becomes important and how far the vast majority of apps can go with monoliths in big boxes (quite far).
1 reply →
I often find that the tooling I have at work helps speed up the development of more complicated solutions. So saying that FAANG solutions are easy to use and you can be fast at is easy when you have that FAANG support. Even just non-FAANG but large enterprises allow for that, but for startup's is easy to forget how the environment (including tooling) helps speed up all of that work immensely.
So yeah, I find a lot of the more complicated solutions to be simple, but mostly because it's well supported and not by just me.
1 reply →
> Scalability comes at a price. Unless you need it, it makes you less flexible. And that is exactly what you don't want to be as a startup.
This is a valid comment. I’ve chosen Postgres in the past for the features, not the performance. For example guaranteed at most once delivery (via row locks) and filtering of jobs based on attributes (it’s a database after all).