I often see different numbers than yours when going from 128 to 256 (or other doubling of power) I get a more than halving of execution time. But I can’t figure out why this is true. Is it because of the scheduler, CPU cache, or bandwidth?
Have you seen these cases, and if so how do you explain it.
Edit: most of my lambdas are a DynamoDB query, Update, and value return.
For DDB queries, it should be a mix of better CPU and better I/O throughput. It is quite common to see such an improvement when you double your function's power - it looks exactly like pattern 5 in the article :)
Yes thanks! I think your example for 512MB goes below 100ms, so its actually showing a bigger time reduction, but not reflected in the price information. Glad it’s not just me seeing this pattern
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
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.
I often see different numbers than yours when going from 128 to 256 (or other doubling of power) I get a more than halving of execution time. But I can’t figure out why this is true. Is it because of the scheduler, CPU cache, or bandwidth?
Have you seen these cases, and if so how do you explain it.
Edit: most of my lambdas are a DynamoDB query, Update, and value return.
Hi Ross, thanks for asking!
For DDB queries, it should be a mix of better CPU and better I/O throughput. It is quite common to see such an improvement when you double your function's power - it looks exactly like pattern 5 in the article :)
Yes thanks! I think your example for 512MB goes below 100ms, so its actually showing a bigger time reduction, but not reflected in the price information. Glad it’s not just me seeing this pattern