[dalyons]

This is so painfully painfully true. I’ve seen in born out personally at three different companies so far. Premature splitting up is bad too, but I think the “just use one Postgres for everything” crowd really underestimate how bad it gets in practice at scale

[Aeolun]

Maybe it’s all a matter of perspective? I’ve seen the ‘split things everywhere’ thing go wrong a lot more times than the ‘one big database’ thing. So I prefer the latter, but I imagine that may be different for other people.

Ultimately I think it’s mostly up to the quality of the team, not the technical choice.

[dalyons]

I’ve seen splitting things go bad too. But less often and to a lesser degree of pain than mono dbs - a bad split is much easier to undo than monodb spaghetti.

However I think it’s “thou shall” rules like this blog post that force useless arguments. The reality is it depends, and you should be using your judgement, use the simplest thing (monodb) until it doesn’t work for you, then pursue splitting (or whatever). Just be aware of your problem domain, your likely max scale, and design for splitting the db sooner than you think before you’re stuck in mud.

And if you’re building something new in an already-at-scale company you should perhaps be starting with something like dynamo if it fits your usecase.