|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
1372 days ago
|
|
They do now, but that wasn't always the case, and people didn't say that you weren't running Postgres when you did that. Cockroach is not the same thing we're talking about here; it's a much more ambitious design, just like rqlite is much more ambitious than shipping SQLite transactions. What we're talking here is the tooling needed to generate a single-writer multi-reader cluster the way you would for Postgres, but for SQLite instead. I don't know if single-writer multi-reader clusters for Postgres qualify as "easy", but they're not science projects. If it's not obvious: we love Cockroach. Our commercial bias is that we built a platform that is especially useful for distributed services and clusters, and Cockroach is very much that. |
|
Still, I would expect the windows of read staleness and data loss to be much wider with an approach of just shipping logs rather than re-engineering things like RQLite, etc. Trying to ship a copy of SQLite to every app will mostly achieve lower latency at the cost of staler reads, although I can see how ideally it could cut the latency in half by streaming data ahead of time. But of course it increases storage costs dramatically as things scale out.