| > Are you suggesting it hits scaling boundaries earlier than that single-node postgres? This is nosql scenario all over again. You have to think in cost($)/query and your data layout. > Of course a distributed architecture costs efficiency, but as long as it still scales further (and after some point, cheaper) than single-node alternatives, the efficiency loss is tolerable. The efficiency loss is tolerable. The question is, when ? For primary-key get, efficiency-loss is, let's say, none. So you can start distributed from the start. For another query, especially multi-tenant when you can put a tenant in 1 box, it may start making sense AFTER scaling to 2TB memory node. Imagine a select query doing a join. It has to read 1GB from nvme-array or from network. Imagine a write, ending up as a distributed-write, it needs to wait for 2x+ more servers in the network. |