Can Amazon's SimpleDB substitute for MySQL database?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=348301

by limeade • 18 years ago

5 7 18 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

I'm developing a web app with only a couple people with small amounts of spare time and it would be great to "outsource" DB management to SimpleDB. I have heard SimpleDB can be slower than MySQL but it seems pretty fast so far w/o a large table. Does anyone have experience with it?

qhoxie• 18 years ago

I have heard of inconsistencies with slow-down, but also quite a few successes. I hear Amazon is improving it consistently though.

I would look at it this way: If you do not have time to manage it, then either the DB or other aspects will suffer - It is likely that SimpleDB will better this.

mdasen2• 18 years ago

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer:

SimpleDB is based off what every application developer wants to hear. Put your data here and it will just be available. No worries, no cares. For (relatively) small amounts of data, SimpleDB will definitely cut it. However, SimpleDB also limits your usage of that data. No nice normalized schema and joins for you. That makes development time much longer.

Of course, if you only have a small amount of data, it's pretty easy to manage MySQL or PostgreSQL. Database administration becomes hard when you have lots of data. But this is where SimpleDB just falls flat. In a single domain (roughly equivalent to a database), you can only have 250,000,000 attributes (cells). That sounds like a huge number at first, but if you have a table with 10 columns, you're down to 25M rows. Still, a lot, but not exactly no-worries. Considering that you'll probably want multiple tables with maybe 100 or more columns, you can see that it just doesn't support large web applications.

Amazon has set up an "infinitely scalable" database that has hard limits that aren't particularly high. Open source relational databases are easy and reliable when you aren't dealing with the scale of a Digg or Flickr. The only reason to go with something less useful (no joins, limited querying) would be to scale better. Amazon's hard limits on SimpleDB mean that it just doesn't scale. So, why use something less easy when the benefit isn't there?

limeade• 18 years ago

Thanks for your advice and everybody else's too... I still feel like I may at least give SimpleDB a try by making a new domain for each table and distributing the large tables over multiple domains (my data is amenable to splitting up). I may make two copies of some domains that are split up in different ways so I don't have to query all of the domains associated with a table.

Are JOINs used that often? My thought was that I could export the data to a mysql database for analysis if I needed to do any very demanding crunching.

mdasen2• 18 years ago

JOINs are awesome. They're expensive operations, no doubt, but they make creating a web application a TON easier. If you're going to limit yourself to the way that Google or Amazon has to develop web applications, you're getting rid of your primary advantage.

Let's say you have a site with logins and comments. Comments are by one of the logins with a nice foreign key in a relational database or you have to add part of that person's info to each comment with something like SimpleDB (if you want to display the name next to the comment, you place the name there). So, then someone changes their name in the logins table - it happens. With the foreign key and a join, all the comments appropriately show the correct name. With SimpleDB, you have to go through and update every single comment that person has made to reflect the changes.

Take something like Facebook. Every single mail message, every single wall post, every single friend, every single Event, every single group, etc. would have to be updated to reflect your new name if it wasn't referential. Now, Facebook probably isn't referential. They're big. They probably spend a ton of time/money keeping that stuff in sync. In fact, they probably run those types of updates as low-priority background jobs (so while your new name shows up in your profile now, it is a while before it gets propagated). That's all guessing, btw, but you can see how much more difficult it is to keep non-relational data in sync.

Places like Facebook have to operate differently because JOINs do have cost. It's amazingly unlikely that a relational database won't suit your site due to scalability. If you're looking to make a cool site, do it the easy way first, then scale. Otherwise, someone else will build it faster than you.

Non-relational data seems easy and it is for simple things. It might be that your site fits very nicely in a non-relational model. Do be aware of the differences.

briansmith• 18 years ago

Getting SimpleDB working well isn't going to be less work than getting MySQL working well. SQLite might be a better alternative.

wehriam• 18 years ago

There are fundamental differences that are more significant than speed or administration.

SimpleDB is "eventually consistent" - that is, when you write, a subsequent read might not immediately reflect the change. There's also no such thing as a join, although you can approximate it.

I think of SimpleDB as searchable metadata storage. It's useful, but not a drop-in replacement for a traditional database.

msie• 18 years ago

I have a hunch that you may be worried about scaling problems since you are looking at SimpleDB instead of MySQL. For an app in its infancy you shouldn't be too worried about scaling problems. Just use a MySQL database for now. Thousands of webapps can't be wrong!

Can Amazon's SimpleDB substitute for MySQL database?

Related Stories