> I'm talking about the entire DB as s3.
Yes, it can be done, except for WAL append & COLD GET. You "just" have to re-architect everything in the storage layer.
Do you have anything specific in mind besides the 2 things I mentioned?
Yes, it can be done, except for WAL append & COLD GET. You "just" have to re-architect everything in the storage layer.
Do you have anything specific in mind besides the 2 things I mentioned?
I already said my points about the problems your follow-up comments have not addressed those.
Also there is no such thing in s3 as a cold GET there is a cold startup for a lambda. The latency from s3 on a get is orders of magnitude poorer that EBS or LSSD and should be used "infrequently".
> What about transactionality, partial updates, running multi document queries, consistency of the whole set of documents.
You do that in another layer on top. The filesystem doesn't provide transactions, yet you do them on a layer on top.
> In terms of scalability there are, limits 3500rps per key prefix.
The S3 metadata is (was?) sharded on key-prefix. You fix this by using more prefixes. By hashing the filenames or something.
> The latency from s3 on a get is orders of magnitude poorer that EBS or LSSD and should be used "infrequently".
Yes, it is. You should use a local SSD for most things.