←back to thread

Transactional Object Storage?

(blog.mbrt.dev)
93 points mbrt | 2 comments | 17 Nov 24 13:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.424s | source
Show context
svrakitin ◴[17 Nov 24 13:34 UTC] No.42164124[source]▶
Pretty cool! Do you have any ideas already about how to make it work with S3, considering it doesn't support If- headers?
replies(4): >>42167487 #>>42170695 #>>42239456 #>>42242819 #
1. choppaface ◴[25 Nov 24 19:41 UTC] No.42239456[source]▶
Not a full solution, but seeing the OP seeks to be a key-value store (versus full RDBMS? despite the comparisons with Spanner and Postgres?), important to weigh how Rockset (also mainly KV store) dealt with S3-backed caching at scale:

  * https://rockset.com/blog/separate-compute-storage-rocksdb/

  * https://github.com/rockset/rocksdb-cloud
Keep in mind Rockset is definitely a bit biased towards vector search use cases.
replies(1): >>42239743 #
2. mbrt ◴[25 Nov 24 20:15 UTC] No.42239743[source]▶
Nice, thanks for the reference!

BTW, the comparison was only to give an idea about isolation levels, it wasn't meant to be a feature-to-feature comparison.

Perhaps I didn't make it prominent enough, but at some point I say that many SQL databases have key-value stores at their core, and implement a SQL layer on top (e.g. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/v22.1/architecture/overvi...).

Basically SQL can be a feature added later to a solid KV store as a base.