← Back to context

Comment by dmix

18 hours ago

This is specifically what they said about sharding

> The primary rationale is that sharding existing application workloads would be highly complex and time-consuming, requiring changes to hundreds of application endpoints and potentially taking months or even years

> potentially taking months or even years

On one hand OAI sell coding agents and constantly hype how easy it will replace developers and most of the code written is by agents, on the other hand they claim it will take years to refactor

Both cannot be true at the same time.

Genuinely sounds like the kind of challenge that could be solved with a swarm of Codex coding agents. I'm surprised they aren't treating this as an ideal use-case to show off their stack!

I know they said that, but in fact sharding is entirely a database-level concern. The application need not be aware of it at all.

  • Sharding can be made mostly transparent, but it's not purely a DB-level concern in practice. Once data is split across nodes, join patterns, cross-shard transactions, global uniqueness, certain keys hit with a lot of traffic, etc matter a lot. Even if partitioning handles routing, the application's query patterns and its consistency/latency requirements can still force application-level changes.

    • > mostly transparent, but it's not purely a DB-level concern in practice ...

      But how would any of that change by going outside Postgres itself to begin with? That's the part that doesn't make much sense to me.

      4 replies →

    • > Once data is split across nodes, join patterns, cross-shard transactions, global uniqueness, certain keys hit with a lot of traffic

      If you're having trouble there then a proxy "layer" between your application and the sharded database makes sense, meaning your application still keeps its naieve understanding of the data (as it should) and the proxy/database access layer handles that messiness... shirley