Good points - sharded Postgres is more likely to be a better choice in most instances. I wouldn't be surprised even if sharded Postgres would have worked well for us, but as you mentioned, for this constrained use case, Bigtable works fine.
What is the recommended way to manage and interact with a shared Postgres cluster? Is it a fully connected mesh where every node running business logic talks to every Postgres node?
To be honest, it never even made it onto our radar, not for any particular reason though :)
IIRC, Spanner relies on precise timing to make certain guarantees, which is definitely relevant to our use case. I wonder how its write performance would stack up against Postgres and Bigtable.
Why would it matter how they do it under the covers? You see correct transactions. The interesting tech in this space is aws redshift, in my testing a few years ago they dominated in price performance when you used the then new node types.
>Why would it matter how they do it under the covers?
It doesn't really matter, I suppose I just got nerd-sniped recalling the details of Spanner's internals and their (somewhat superficial) relevance to the issues of timekeeping mentioned in the blog post :)
You're right, it does and we actually did do some performance testing that relied on single-row transactions early on in development but ultimately found slightly better performance with prefix/range scans (in addition to avoiding some limitations with retries and replication IIRC).
I hear often that strength training is more beneficial as, supposedly, increments your growth hormone levels.
I'm also interested in a listing of publications comparing different physical activities for their fitness related to improving health overall and anti-aging concretely. ?
What does having perfect eyesight have to do with becoming a commercial pilot? In the US, you can become a commercial pilot as long as your vision can be corrected to 20/20 [0].
The comparison to the C-17 rather than the C-5 seems rather deliberate to me (along with using lbs instead of tons for the unit). It's more sensational if a future Chinese military cargo plane "beats" a US cargo plane in cargo capacity by XXX,000 of anything.
Any time they don't translate between units, or mix different types together, I assume the writer is not only functionally innumerate, but also just repeating what somebody else has told them to say...
Also note that (according to Wikipedia) the capacity is 250,000kg - so 275 tons, or 551,155 lbs.
The C-17's cargo capacity (again, from Wikipedia) is 77,500kg - so 85 tons, or 170,858lbs. That looks a lot more like a difference of 380,000lbs than 300,000lbs to me, which, with some journalistic licence, could surely become "almost 400,000lbs more". You may well be correct about the sensationalism aspect, and here they are leaving some of that on the table.
So I don't really know what's going on. Like I said, functionally innumerate... (Though of course, calculation error at this end is always a possibility! But nobody's paying me to do this, so I'm going to go with my gut here.)
