Hacker News Reader

Hopefully we will see AWS release a managed serverless SQL db solution at re:Invent 2017. Like DynamoDB but for SQL.

> Like DynamoDB but for SQL

This would basically be the game-changer for building backends on lambda.

The absolute key and most valuable piece in most backends is the persistent datastore. I absolutely want to build functional stateless business logic on lambda, but I absolutely will not, no matter the gain from not having to manage servers, have my database be dynamodb or any other non-RDBMS, for any serious application in 2017.

Why not? Plenty of serious companies use DDB or MongoDb or plenty of other databases for their "serious applications"... this seems like a rule based on a bad experience. Would love to hear about it.

Why not? Well, a caveat: I will always use an RDBMS when the data is inherently relational. In a "serious application" (I realise the term serious is hyperbolic here and I shouldn't have used it) this is true most of the time.

If it weren't true, then of course I might consider using DynamoDB or similar. But I think these situations are few and far between.

I'm often wrong though and happy to learn about some counter examples if you have any / have my assumptions corrected.

There's Aurora which has scalable read replicas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com