←back to thread

66 points enether | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source

The space is confusing to say the least.

Message queues are usually a core part of any distributed architecture, and the options are endless: Kafka, RabbitMQ, NATS, Redis Streams, SQS, ZeroMQ... and then there's the “just use Postgres” camp for simpler use cases.

I’m trying to make sense of the tradeoffs between:

- async fire-and-forget pub/sub vs. sync RPC-like point to point communication

- simple FIFO vs. priority queues and delay queues

- intelligent brokers (e.g. RabbitMQ, NATS with filters) vs. minimal brokers (e.g. Kafka’s client-driven model)

There's also a fair amount of ideology/emotional attachment - some folks root for underdogs written in their favorite programming language, others reflexively dismiss anything that's not "enterprise-grade". And of course, vendors are always in the mix trying to steer the conversation toward their own solution.

If you’ve built a production system in the last few years:

1. What queue did you choose?

2. What didn't work out?

3. Where did you regret adding complexity?

4. And if you stuck with a DB-based queue — did it scale?

I’d love to hear war stories, regrets, and opinions.

Show context
wordofx ◴[] No.44019353[source]
Postgres. Doing ~ 70k messages/second average. Nothing huge but don’t need anything dedicated yet.
replies(3): >>44019364 #>>44019616 #>>44029804 #
lawn ◴[] No.44019364[source]
I'm curious on how people use Postgres as a message queue. Do you rely on libraries or do you run a custom implementation?
replies(5): >>44019417 #>>44019421 #>>44019433 #>>44019689 #>>44023708 #
1. wordofx ◴[] No.44019689[source]
Just select for update skipped locked. Table is partitioned to keep unprocessed small.