I agree. It is also amazing how different the database systems are that are competing against each other today:
Partitioning:
1) DynamoDb: Partitioning is explicit and one of the most important parts of schema design
2) Spanner, Cockroach: Database automatically partitions the key ranges.
3) Postgres: You will probably never reach the scale where you need to partition your dataset!
Transactions:
1) Spanner, firestore - no stored procedures, client-side transactions are important
2) Dynamodb: No stored procedures, no client-side transactions, only transactions where all items involved are known by primary key in advance.
3) Fauna, Supabase: Stored procedures are the way to go! You do not need application code, access your database from the client!
4) Postgres: We have everything, use what fits your particular use-case!
If database internals did not matter, why are they all doing something different and are sometimes quite opinionated about it?
Comments
I agree. It is also amazing how different the database systems are that are competing against each other today:
Partitioning: 1) DynamoDb: Partitioning is explicit and one of the most important parts of schema design 2) Spanner, Cockroach: Database automatically partitions the key ranges. 3) Postgres: You will probably never reach the scale where you need to partition your dataset!
Transactions: 1) Spanner, firestore - no stored procedures, client-side transactions are important 2) Dynamodb: No stored procedures, no client-side transactions, only transactions where all items involved are known by primary key in advance. 3) Fauna, Supabase: Stored procedures are the way to go! You do not need application code, access your database from the client! 4) Postgres: We have everything, use what fits your particular use-case!
If database internals did not matter, why are they all doing something different and are sometimes quite opinionated about it?