Database load changes significantly by time of day.
Keep relational-database compatibility without paying for maximum capacity at all times.
Which choice is most appropriate?
Use Aurora Serverless v2 with a configured ACU range so relational capacity scales with the observed load.
Detailed explanation
DynamoDB uses a different data model and does not preserve a relational SQL interface unchanged.
DynamoDB uses a different data model and does not preserve a relational SQL interface unchanged.
Aurora Serverless v2 adjusts Aurora capacity within the configured range as demand changes.
Aurora Serverless v2 adjusts Aurora capacity within the configured range as demand changes.
CloudFront caches content and does not scale a database's write capacity.
CloudFront caches content and does not scale a database's write capacity.
A fixed maximum size pays for capacity that is unused during low-load periods.
A fixed maximum size pays for capacity that is unused during low-load periods.
Check official documentation
Compare the following points with the official documentation.
Amazon Aurora Serverless v2の公式説明を確認する。
What to confirm
変動するリレーショナルDB負荷へServerless v2を選択できる。
Key points
- Aurora Serverless v2
- ACU
- Relational database
Notes
- Environment: AWS公式Auroraドキュメントの確認
- Confirm current AWS pricing and service behavior in the official documentation.
Foundation review
Elastic relational capacity
An ACU range avoids paying for the peak all day while retaining the relational engine.
Model compatibility
DynamoDB can be a good fit for other access patterns but does not preserve relational SQL semantics unchanged.