I'm trying to understand the real advantages of using Kinesis streams compared to SQS. Both can handle large volumes of data and batch messages for later processing, and they both require services like Lambda or ECS for handling network latency. It's confusing to me why someone would prefer Kinesis when it seems like its streaming capabilities should mean faster processing. Can someone explain, with concrete examples, what Kinesis can do that SQS can't?
6 Answers
In short, it’s about the difference between real-time processing versus asynchronous processing. Kinesis shines in scenarios where you need to handle continuous data streams, while SQS serves well for decoupling applications.
Another aspect is latency and message size. Kinesis can handle real-time data flows more efficiently, while SQS isn’t aimed at low-latency applications. Plus, SQS has a 256KB message size limit, but Kinesis can manage larger messages, which can be crucial depending on the data you're dealing with.
The architectural design is quite different between the two. SQS is about storing work units for downstream processes and removing them once done, while Kinesis keeps a record of events in the order they happen. With Kinesis, the same event can be processed by multiple systems without losing the order of occurrence, which is beneficial for many use cases.
Kinesis has several key benefits over SQS. For starters, Kinesis allows for multiple consumers to read data at the same time, which isn't the case with SQS unless you're using FIFO. Plus, Kinesis retains data for a specific period, meaning you can replay messages if needed, while SQS deletes messages once they're acknowledged. Additionally, Kinesis maintains the order of messages within a shard, giving it an edge when order matters. Really, it’s designed for high throughput and concurrent processing.
And let’s not forget about cost—Kinesis can be cheaper in certain scenarios!
Kinesis also differentiates itself with data retention—it's not just about passing messages, but also keeps a history of events. A classic example is log ingestion; if a downstream component fails, Kinesis allows you to replay events from any point within the retention period, which is tough to achieve with SQS.
Kinesis is more akin to Kafka than a typical message queue like SQS. It’s built for continuously capturing streams of data, which makes it ideal for applications where you need to process real-time events, rather than simply storing tasks to be done later.
That’s a great point! Also, if you compare throughput, Kinesis generally handles more than a typical FIFO SQS queue.