使用S3作为数据库还是数据库(例如MongoDB) [英] Using S3 as a database vs. database (e.g. MongoDB)

问题描述

由于设置简单且成本低廉，我正在考虑使用AWS S3存储桶而非NoSQL数据库将简单的用户设置保存为JSON(约30个文档).

Due to simple setup and low costs I am considering using AWS S3 bucket instead of a NoSQL database to save simple user settings as a JSON (around 30 documents).

我研究了以下不使用数据库的缺点，这些缺点与我的用例无关:

I researched the following disadvantages of not using a database which are not relevant for my use case:

• 列出存储桶/文件将花费您的钱.
• 没有更新-您无法更新文件，只能替换它.
• 没有索引.
• 版本更改将使您花费$$.
• 没有搜索
• 没有交易
• 没有查询API(SQL或NoSQL)

使用S3存储桶代替数据库还有其他缺点吗?

Are there any other disavantages of using a S3 bucket instead of a database?

推荐答案

您正在考虑使用AWS S3存储桶而非NoSQL数据库"，但事实是Amazon S3实际上是 一种NoSQL数据库.

You are "considering using AWS S3 bucket instead of a NoSQL database", but the fact is that Amazon S3 effectively is a NoSQL database.

这是一个非常大的键值存储.密钥是文件名，值是文件的内容.

It is a very large Key-Value store. The Key is the filename, the Value is the contents of the file.

如果您的需求仅仅是使用此键存储值"和使用此键检索值"，那么它就可以正常工作！

If your needs are simply "Store a value with this key" and "Retrieve a value with this key", then it would work just fine!

实际上，由于Amazon.com上的旧订单(已有一年多的历史)是只读的(无退货，无变化)，因此显然已存档到Amazon S3.

In fact, old orders on Amazon.com (more than a year old) are apparently archived to Amazon S3 since they are read-only (no returns, no changes).

虽然比DynamoDB慢，但Amazon S3的存储成本肯定要低得多！

While slower than DynamoDB, Amazon S3 certainly costs significantly less for storage!

这篇关于使用S3作为数据库还是数据库(例如MongoDB)的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！