This is a cool question. The keyword here is simultaneously. This has nothing to do with the Serverless Framework, and everything to do with the way AWS Lambda works under the hood.
When your front end sends 6 concurrent requests to a Lambda function, it will spawn 6 instances and every instance will handle one request. If you were to send 6 requests sequentially, one instance would be enough.
Because, in this case, you have 6 Lambda function instances, every one of those will create a database connection. Makes sense?
The way to handle this is to have one Lambda function dedicated to only database interaction, while the other act as proxies. This is very hard to configure. I'd suggest you use a serverless database that can scale as easily as Lambda. :)
Very cool question, feel free to hit me up through the chat here in dev.to if you have any more topics like these. I'd love to nerd out.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
This is a cool question. The keyword here is simultaneously. This has nothing to do with the Serverless Framework, and everything to do with the way AWS Lambda works under the hood.
When your front end sends 6 concurrent requests to a Lambda function, it will spawn 6 instances and every instance will handle one request. If you were to send 6 requests sequentially, one instance would be enough.
Because, in this case, you have 6 Lambda function instances, every one of those will create a database connection. Makes sense?
The way to handle this is to have one Lambda function dedicated to only database interaction, while the other act as proxies. This is very hard to configure. I'd suggest you use a serverless database that can scale as easily as Lambda. :)
Very cool question, feel free to hit me up through the chat here in dev.to if you have any more topics like these. I'd love to nerd out.