Get Advice Icon

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

AWS Lambda

24.2K
18.7K
+ 1
432
Microsoft SQL Server

20K
15.4K
+ 1
540
Add tool

AWS Lambda vs Microsoft SQL Server: What are the differences?

Introduction

When comparing AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server, there are key differences in their functionality and purpose that are important to understand.

  1. Deployment and Scaling: One major difference between AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server is in their deployment and scaling capabilities. AWS Lambda allows for serverless computing, where code functions are run in response to events without the need to provision or manage servers. On the other hand, Microsoft SQL Server requires the deployment and management of SQL Server instances on physical or virtual servers, which may require additional overhead for scaling up or down based on demand.

  2. Service Type: AWS Lambda is a cloud-based serverless computing service that allows users to run code in response to events, while Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database management system (RDBMS) specifically designed for managing and querying databases. The fundamental difference lies in the core functionality each service provides, with AWS Lambda focusing on code execution and event-driven architecture, and SQL Server focusing on database management and querying.

  3. Billing Model: Another key difference between AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server is their billing models. AWS Lambda charges users based on the number of requests and the time it takes to execute the code functions, while Microsoft SQL Server typically charges users based on the number of user licenses or server instances. This difference in billing can impact the cost-effectiveness of using one service over the other based on the specific use case and workload requirements.

  4. Scalability: AWS Lambda is designed to be highly scalable, allowing code functions to easily scale up or down based on demand without the need for manual intervention. In contrast, while Microsoft SQL Server can be scaled vertically by increasing the resources allocated to a single server instance, horizontal scaling across multiple instances can be more complex to set up and manage. This difference in scalability can impact the ability of each service to handle varying workloads efficiently.

  5. Multi-Tenancy: AWS Lambda operates in a multi-tenant environment where multiple users can share the same underlying infrastructure, resulting in cost savings and resource optimization. In contrast, Microsoft SQL Server typically follows a single-tenant architecture, where each user or organization has dedicated resources to ensure data isolation and performance predictability. This difference in multi-tenancy can impact the level of resource utilization and isolation provided by each service.

  6. Data Management: AWS Lambda is not specifically designed for data management but can interact with various data sources through integrations with other AWS services or third-party databases. Microsoft SQL Server, on the other hand, is a robust RDBMS that provides advanced features for data storage, retrieval, and manipulation, making it a more suitable choice for data-heavy applications that require complex querying and transaction handling.

Summary

In summary, AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server differ in deployment and scaling capabilities, service type, billing models, scalability, multi-tenancy, and data management, making each service better suited for specific use cases and workloads.

Advice on AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server

Need advice on what platform, systems and tools to use.

Evaluating whether to start a new digital business for which we will need to build a website that handles all traffic. Website only right now. May add smartphone apps later. No desktop app will ever be added. Website to serve various countries and languages. B2B and B2C type customers. Need to handle heavy traffic, be low cost, and scale well.

We are open to either build it on AWS or on Microsoft Azure.

Apologies if I'm leaving out some info. My first post. :) Thanks in advance!

See more
Replies (2)
Anis Zehani

I recommend this : -Spring reactive for back end : the fact it's reactive (async) it consumes half of the resources that a sync platform needs (so less CPU -> less money). -Angular : Web Front end ; it's gives you the possibility to use PWA which is a cheap replacement for a mobile app (but more less popular). -Docker images. -Kubernetes to orchestrate all the containers. -I Use Jenkins / blueocean, ansible for my CI/CD (with Github of course) -AWS of course : u can run a K8S cluster there, make it multi AZ (availability zones) to be highly available, use a load balancer and an auto scaler and ur good to go. -You can store data by taking any managed DB or u can deploy ur own (cheap but risky).

You pay less money, but u need some technical 2 - 3 guys to make that done.

Good luck

See more

My advice will be Front end: React Backend: Language: Java, Kotlin. Database: SQL: Postgres, MySQL, Aurora NOSQL: Mongo db. Caching: Redis. Public : Spring Webflux for async public facing operation. Admin api: Spring boot, Hibrernate, Rest API. Build Container image. Kuberenetes: AWS EKS, AWS ECS, Google GKE. Use Jenkins for CI/CD pipeline. Buddy works is good for AWS. Static content: Host on AWS S3 bucket, Use Cloudfront or Cloudflare as CDN.

Serverless Solution: Api gateway Lambda, Serveless Aurora (SQL). AWS S3 bucket.

See more

I am a Microsoft SQL Server programmer who is a bit out of practice. I have been asked to assist on a new project. The overall purpose is to organize a large number of recordings so that they can be searched. I have an enormous music library but my songs are several hours long. I need to include things like time, date and location of the recording. I don't have a problem with the general database design. I have two primary questions:

  1. I need to use either MySQL or PostgreSQL on a Linux based OS. Which would be better for this application?
  2. I have not dealt with a sound based data type before. How do I store that and put it in a table? Thank you.
See more
Replies (6)

Hi Erin,

Honestly both databases will do the job just fine. I personally prefer Postgres.

Much more important is how you store the audio. While you could technically use a blob type column, it's really not ideal to be storing audio files which are "several hours long" in a database row. Instead consider storing the audio files in an object store (hosted options include backblaze b2 or aws s3) and persisting the key (which references that object) in your database column.

See more
Aaron Westley
Recommends
on
PostgreSQLPostgreSQL

Hi Erin, Chances are you would want to store the files in a blob type. Both MySQL and Postgres support this. Can you explain a little more about your need to store the files in the database? I may be more effective to store the files on a file system or something like S3. To answer your qustion based on what you are descibing I would slighly lean towards PostgreSQL since it tends to be a little better on the data warehousing side.

See more
Julien DeFrance
Principal Software Engineer at Tophatter · | 3 upvotes · 494.3K views
Recommends
on
Amazon AuroraAmazon Aurora

Hi Erin! First of all, you'd probably want to go with a managed service. Don't spin up your own MySQL installation on your own Linux box. If you are on AWS, thet have different offerings for database services. Standard RDS vs. Aurora. Aurora would be my preferred choice given the benefits it offers, storage optimizations it comes with... etc. Such managed services easily allow you to apply new security patches and upgrades, set up backups, replication... etc. Doing this on your own would either be risky, inefficient, or you might just give up. As far as which database to chose, you'll have the choice between Postgresql, MySQL, Maria DB, SQL Server... etc. I personally would recommend MySQL (latest version available), as the official tooling for it (MySQL Workbench) is great, stable, and moreover free. Other database services exist, I'd recommend you also explore Dynamo DB.

Regardless, you'd certainly only keep high-level records, meta data in Database, and the actual files, most-likely in S3, so that you can keep all options open in terms of what you'll do with them.

See more
Christopher Wray
Web Developer at Soltech LLC · | 3 upvotes · 494.7K views
Recommends
on
DirectusDirectus
at

Hey Erin! I would recommend checking out Directus before you start work on building your own app for them. I just stumbled upon it, and so far extremely happy with the functionalities. If your client is just looking for a simple web app for their own data, then Directus may be a great option. It offers "database mirroring", so that you can connect it to any database and set up functionality around it!

See more
Recommends
on
PostgreSQLPostgreSQL

Hi Erin,

  • Coming from "Big" DB engines, such as Oracle or MSSQL, go for PostgreSQL. You'll get all the features you need with PostgreSQL.
  • Your case seems to point to a "NoSQL" or Document Database use case. Since you get covered on this with PostgreSQL which achieves excellent performances on JSON based objects, this is a second reason to choose PostgreSQL. MongoDB might be an excellent option as well if you need "sharding" and excellent map-reduce mechanisms for very massive data sets. You really should investigate the NoSQL option for your use case.
  • Starting with AWS Aurora is an excellent advise. since "vendor lock-in" is limited, but I did not check for JSON based object / NoSQL features.
  • If you stick to Linux server, the PostgreSQL or MySQL provided with your distribution are straightforward to install (i.e. apt install postgresql). For PostgreSQL, make sure you're comfortable with the pg_hba.conf, especially for IP restrictions & accesses.

Regards,

See more
Klaus Nji
Staff Software Engineer at SailPoint Technologies · | 1 upvotes · 494.4K views
Recommends
on
PostgreSQLPostgreSQL

I recommend Postgres as well. Superior performance overall and a more robust architecture.

See more
Decisions about AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server

When adding a new feature to Checkly rearchitecting some older piece, I tend to pick Heroku for rolling it out. But not always, because sometimes I pick AWS Lambda . The short story:

  • Developer Experience trumps everything.
  • AWS Lambda is cheap. Up to a limit though. This impact not only your wallet.
  • If you need geographic spread, AWS is lonely at the top.
The setup

Recently, I was doing a brainstorm at a startup here in Berlin on the future of their infrastructure. They were ready to move on from their initial, almost 100% Ec2 + Chef based setup. Everything was on the table. But we crossed out a lot quite quickly:

  • Pure, uncut, self hosted Kubernetes — way too much complexity
  • Managed Kubernetes in various flavors — still too much complexity
  • Zeit — Maybe, but no Docker support
  • Elastic Beanstalk — Maybe, bit old but does the job
  • Heroku
  • Lambda

It became clear a mix of PaaS and FaaS was the way to go. What a surprise! That is exactly what I use for Checkly! But when do you pick which model?

I chopped that question up into the following categories:

  • Developer Experience / DX 🤓
  • Ops Experience / OX 🐂 (?)
  • Cost 💵
  • Lock in 🔐

Read the full post linked below for all details

See more
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More
Pros of AWS Lambda
Pros of Microsoft SQL Server
  • 129
    No infrastructure
  • 83
    Cheap
  • 70
    Quick
  • 59
    Stateless
  • 47
    No deploy, no server, great sleep
  • 12
    AWS Lambda went down taking many sites with it
  • 6
    Event Driven Governance
  • 6
    Extensive API
  • 6
    Auto scale and cost effective
  • 6
    Easy to deploy
  • 5
    VPC Support
  • 3
    Integrated with various AWS services
  • 139
    Reliable and easy to use
  • 101
    High performance
  • 95
    Great with .net
  • 65
    Works well with .net
  • 56
    Easy to maintain
  • 21
    Azure support
  • 17
    Always on
  • 17
    Full Index Support
  • 10
    Enterprise manager is fantastic
  • 9
    In-Memory OLTP Engine
  • 2
    Easy to setup and configure
  • 2
    Security is forefront
  • 1
    Great documentation
  • 1
    Faster Than Oracle
  • 1
    Columnstore indexes
  • 1
    Decent management tools
  • 1
    Docker Delivery
  • 1
    Max numar of connection is 14000

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of AWS Lambda
Cons of Microsoft SQL Server
  • 7
    Cant execute ruby or go
  • 3
    Compute time limited
  • 1
    Can't execute PHP w/o significant effort
  • 4
    Expensive Licensing
  • 2
    Microsoft
  • 1
    Data pages is only 8k
  • 1
    Allwayon can loose data in asycronious mode
  • 1
    Replication can loose the data
  • 1
    The maximum number of connections is only 14000 connect

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

16
31.7K
22K
202.8K
1

What is AWS Lambda?

AWS Lambda is a compute service that runs your code in response to events and automatically manages the underlying compute resources for you. You can use AWS Lambda to extend other AWS services with custom logic, or create your own back-end services that operate at AWS scale, performance, and security.

What is Microsoft SQL Server?

Microsoft® SQL Server is a database management and analysis system for e-commerce, line-of-business, and data warehousing solutions.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

What companies use AWS Lambda?
What companies use Microsoft SQL Server?
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with AWS Lambda?
What tools integrate with Microsoft SQL Server?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

Blog Posts

GitHubPythonNode.js+47
55
72989
GitHubDockerAmazon EC2+23
12
6681
JavaScriptGitHubPython+42
53
22315
What are some alternatives to AWS Lambda and Microsoft SQL Server?
Serverless
Build applications comprised of microservices that run in response to events, auto-scale for you, and only charge you when they run. This lowers the total cost of maintaining your apps, enabling you to build more logic, faster. The Framework uses new event-driven compute services, like AWS Lambda, Google CloudFunctions, and more.
Azure Functions
Azure Functions is an event driven, compute-on-demand experience that extends the existing Azure application platform with capabilities to implement code triggered by events occurring in virtually any Azure or 3rd party service as well as on-premises systems.
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Once you upload your application, Elastic Beanstalk automatically handles the deployment details of capacity provisioning, load balancing, auto-scaling, and application health monitoring.
AWS Step Functions
AWS Step Functions makes it easy to coordinate the components of distributed applications and microservices using visual workflows. Building applications from individual components that each perform a discrete function lets you scale and change applications quickly.
Google App Engine
Google has a reputation for highly reliable, high performance infrastructure. With App Engine you can take advantage of the 10 years of knowledge Google has in running massively scalable, performance driven systems. App Engine applications are easy to build, easy to maintain, and easy to scale as your traffic and data storage needs grow.
See all alternatives