在这个用例中，Lambda 是否需要 SQS？

Question

I'm trying to build a flow that allows a user to enter data and it's being stored in RDS. My question is do I need to go from USER -> SQS -> Lambda -> RDS to or is it better to go straight from USER -> Lambda -> RDS which skips the queue entirely. Are there going to be scalability issues with the latter?

I do like that the SQS can retry a large number of times to guarantee the data, but is there a similar way to retry with a lambda alone? It's important that all of the data is stored and done so in a timely manner. I'm struggling to see the tradeoffs of the two scenarios.

If anyone has any input on the situation, that would be amazing.

Answer 1

Are there going to be scalability issues with the latter?

It depends on multiple metrics including traffic, spikes, size of the database, rpm etc.

Putting SQS before lambda provides you to manage number of database queries in t time according to your needs. It is a "queue" and you are consuming that queue. In some business cases it may not be useful(banking transactions etc) but in some cases(analytic calculations) it may be helpful. Instead of making a single insert whenever lambda is invoked, you can set batch size and insert in batch (10 records at once) which reduces the number of queries.

Also you can define dead letter queue to push your problematic data(couldn't make it to database). It will be another queue that you to check later to identify problematic inputs. The document can be found here