←back to thread

66 points enether | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.427s | 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
MyOutfitIsVague ◴[] No.44019361[source]
For my extremely specialized case, I use a SQLite database as a message queue. It absolutely wouldn't scale, but it doesn't need to. It works extremely well for what I need it to do.
replies(2): >>44019882 #>>44022361 #
1. pdimitar ◴[] No.44019882[source]
Have you written up about it? I'd love to read it if so. Thought of using SQLite several times like this but never mustered the courage to try.
replies(1): >>44020906 #
2. RedShift1 ◴[] No.44020906[source]
I use SQLite as an offline buffer for telemetry data, basically one thread does INSERT of the payloads and another thread does just SELECT and then DELETE when it has successfully transmitted the payload.