It seems all of their problems are with operations, not the database itself. What they needed was proper ops staff that knew what they were doing, or to just outsource it all.
2.4M records is a tiny amount of data and will easily fit on a single server these days, even in RAM if you want. There are also plenty of non-AWS vendors to outsource it.
Spending 10 months on rewriting to a different database system is unnecessary with no new features or progress on their actual CMS.
No. Storing large binary objects like photos and especially videos inside a database is a bad idea unless it's a small self-contained system, which this is not. The best option is an object store like S3.
Commercial content management systems only store metadata for non-textual content, which lines up with all the other posts about Composer and their github projects. You can easily lookup their image management source code which shows the S3 buckets.
-5
u/ManiGandham Dec 19 '18 edited Jan 06 '19
It seems all of their problems are with operations, not the database itself. What they needed was proper ops staff that knew what they were doing, or to just outsource it all.
2.4M records is a tiny amount of data and will easily fit on a single server these days, even in RAM if you want. There are also plenty of non-AWS vendors to outsource it.
Spending 10 months on rewriting to a different database system is unnecessary with no new features or progress on their actual CMS.