|
|
|
|
|
|
by gravypod
2364 days ago
|
|
|
> all those points sound more like quickfixes for bad architecture design. As an on looker the architecture of TiDB is anything but bad. It doesn't fit into the "run one thing for everything" bucket of software because it's designed to be horizontally scalable. Every part of the design is scoped well enough to only do the bare minimum for it's goal. I have no doubt that internally at Google things like BigTable look very architecturally similar. > Big mistake going polyglot. Why? Because you can't make a single binary? That's not really a use case that makes sense for a cloud native DB. Everything is going to be a container anyway, so it doesn't matter what artifacts are included. Also the individual implementation layers of TiDB are individually useful (TiKV). Making a single binary has no benifits unless you're running your hardware in a pet mentality which manually curated software. In this case a horizontally scalable db will not help you. Also, providing an operator is a far cry from a "quick fix". I applaud them for doing this because it essentially removes the operation burden of running their DB. |
|
|