I really enjoy using fauna as a strongly consistent global db (classic region group), since I can essentially treat it as a traditional single-region db and not worry about eventual consistency at all, while enjoying good read latency across the globe.
However, this comes at a cost in terms of write latency, usually on the order of ~200ms in my experience. This is acceptable for a lot of use cases, but not every use case.
Using a less distributed region group reduces write latency for a particular region, but obviously it also makes things worse for users in other regions.
Currently, I’m exploring a bunch of other solutions such as Cloudflare Workers KV, Dynamo Global Tables, CosmosDB, Macrometa, etc, for these write-latency sensitive use cases that could tolerate eventual consistency, but I would love to be able to use fauna for them instead.
Is this being considered? Am I the only one who would find this useful? Is it even feasible at all for Fauna’s architecture?
Would love to hear people’s thoughts!