In terms of scale do you think you will have an upper cap or it's planned to support even terrabytes
In terms of scale do you think you will have an upper cap or it's planned to support even terrabytes in db size?
MI don't think single databases with terabytes of storage are likely, but I also don't think they make sense elsewhere. A Postgres database or MySQL database with > 100GB will start to see scaling and query performance issues. If you need a single DB with terabytes of storage there's likely an application architecture issue.
CColin
CSorry if this has been asked before.. I am new to a discord and to cloudflare. The documentation says it is not stable and thus@not ready for production. What other options are available for a cloudflare-distributed web-app that requires a basic database?
Jfrom the looks of things, that repo only interacts with D1 in a worker script, not Next.js, so I would probably avoid using that as an example for Next.js personally
Mhttps://developers.cloudflare.com/pages/framework-guides/deploy-a-nextjs-site/#use-bindings-in-your-nextjs-application is the generic example, that applies to KV/R2/D1
MThis isn't to say we won't add a pointed D1 example, but there is a Next.js example
JI know - I was the one who updated that 
I'm just saying that the example you linked to the person who said Next.js doesn't actually use it in Next.js
I'm just saying that the example you linked to the person who said Next.js doesn't actually use it in Next.js
CDid you ever get a chance to check into the broken d1 db 972558fd-cadf-4bec-8b0b-5a140d7d51fb? I don't mean to bother you, not critical, I'm duplicating all my writes/etc to Planetscale for this purpose, but it's still dead as a doornail, seems to go between the states of being completely dead/unreachable (Gateway timeouts) and instant d1 errors
D1_ERROR: Error: Internal error while starting up D1 storage caused object to be reset
MWe're still looking: you've hit what looks like a very rare edge case. Been debugging it since yesterday — we need to cut a release to get more info from the writer flow. Will let you know once we see it fixed
CThanks! Just my luck lol, I suppose it's good to hit these errors now rather then later though
HI’m wondering, for large applications with data in the TB range, would sharding work? And if so, would there be a way to shard natively with D1, or is that something we need to handle ourselves?
MThis is definitely something we're thinking about. Being able to shard across multiple DBs based on some form of
shardKeyAt the same time, if you have a single DB in the TB range... there are many, many other considerations. You're probably running more OLAP type workloads, storing large blobs, etc.
Abefore we start getting charged, will we be able to see metrics for read/write units used?
Anice. Any idea when thats happening? or just some time before pricing starts
Aok, thank you
VWhat's the best way to cache responses from D1? The Cache API?
It seems kinda sub-par, since AFAIK it only caches in the a local PoP. It would be nice to go at least regional
It seems kinda sub-par, since AFAIK it only caches in the a local PoP. It would be nice to go at least regional
VKV is the best option in the cloudflare arsenal for it?
Muntil we start handling the regional read replicas for you, probably yeah
Mcan do
MGitHub
Which Cloudflare product(s) does this pertain to? D1 What version of Wrangler are you using? 2.19.0 What operating system are you using? macOS Describe the Bug As per issue #555 we can see, that d1...
Mwe need it 
CIf the issue is still open then I would assume it hasn't been fixed
Mjust a kind reminder
CAny timetable on when the 1GB storage will be available?
A+1 I'm also keen for this to be fixed. It has flow on effects in drizzle-orm, joins just don't work correctly for any queries run against D1.
MI can send you a temporary fix if you are stuck with it
ANah that's ok, I've worked around it by not using joins for now. But it's definitely something I have to actively work around, so keen for a fix from the Cloudflare team.
M
MPlease don't do this.
SIt looks like TS bindings don't align with actual types when calling 'all' from a prepared statement 
The 'results' field has a type of T[][], when actually it's just T[], so I'm forced to use ts-expect-error. Using version 4.20230628.0 of workers types, but it was the case at least since 4.20230321.0 (that's when I started using D1). Also, I'm using experimental backend for D1
Am I doing something wrong? If not, how do I report it properly (e.g. github issue) so it can be tracked?
The 'results' field has a type of T[][], when actually it's just T[], so I'm forced to use ts-expect-error. Using version 4.20230628.0 of workers types, but it was the case at least since 4.20230321.0 (that's when I started using D1). Also, I'm using experimental backend for D1
Am I doing something wrong? If not, how do I report it properly (e.g. github issue) so it can be tracked?
IIt seems like it’s passing in Out[] as the result type, which is not what you are passing… have you tried restarting Typescript or the editor?
UFrom reading the issue it seems like they are probably just going to make that throw an error instead of returning data at all and you should be using
ASDurable Objects run in a ton of regions, as for the D1 read replicas will they match these regions or run in fewer ones? DO give the best performance as of now as they run the closest and was just wondering if this will be the same in the future. Guess it's kinda overkill to run 8 read replicas for a db.
UD1 is a durable object so it will be the same regions but how many it will be in no clue. My guess is probably 3 maybe 4 
UDurable object’s performance really depend though because if you have 1 object used by many users it won’t be close to all of them as they aren’t replicated each object only exists in one location
VI have one DO per user and this is why I was wondering about D1/DO speed
Vas with my current setup DO is really close to the user and so everything is snappy. D1 will be single-writer as stated by the team so the write speeds will be always faster for DO, but I guess reads will be at least as good or better for DOs too.
VIt's just that I'd love to write SQL instead of DOs, lot easier for other developers in the team too.
VAnd so which one does one choose, a few hundered ms faster writes, and a couple ten ms faster reads for the end users or easier developer experience
Veasier migrations etc etc, all the goodies that come with the abstraction of D1
MMost web applications are (at least) 80:20 read:write, for what it’s worth.
MNothing stops you from creating multiple D1 databases either — but if you want to query all of your (global) data you need to make a trade-off. We don’t think D1 and DO are really comparable: a SQL database vs a strongly consistent key:value store.
VYeah multiple databases is the same tradeoff as with Durable Objects, I need a global singleton instance to keep track of like list of all users in the system and since that is a single DO it can increase latency for some endpoint where accessing it is needed.
VAlso, even if 80:20 is the ratio of read:writes I have a hard time justifying a 500ms write response for globally distributed users. I know going single writer gives us a lot of consistency but honestly I really like Dynamos model, where one at least has the option to go multi writer while still having a single database/table
VAnyways, can't wait for D1 to get out of beta and to learn about it's capabilities and test it against other DBs 
KHey! Just want to let you know I'm continuing to try to debug what's going on with your database. It seems for some reason our metadata storage is dropping connections but only when we try to query your object specifically. The data is all there and fine, but the backend drops the connection whenever we try to grab the lock to start up the object, and our current observability isn't sufficient to tell me what exactly went wrong. Debugging is slow because we have to push a new runtime release to test each theory about what's happening here, since we can repro with any kind of test data, but it's going... (I did three releaess over the weekend for this.)
It's possible we could get the object working again more quickly by resetting some state but then we'd never know exactly what went wrong, so it could happen again someday. Since you say it's not critical for you, I'd like to keep trying to debug, but let me know if that changes and you want me to prioritize getting the object working without understanding what broke.
It's possible we could get the object working again more quickly by resetting some state but then we'd never know exactly what went wrong, so it could happen again someday. Since you say it's not critical for you, I'd like to keep trying to debug, but let me know if that changes and you want me to prioritize getting the object working without understanding what broke.
