Ask HN: What's your go-to message queue in 2025?
Message queues are usually a core part of any distributed architecture, and the options are endless: Kafka, RabbitMQ, NATS, Redis Streams, SQS, ZeroMQ... and then there's the “just use Postgres” camp for simpler use cases.
I’m trying to make sense of the tradeoffs between:
- async fire-and-forget pub/sub vs. sync RPC-like point to point communication
- simple FIFO vs. priority queues and delay queues
- intelligent brokers (e.g. RabbitMQ, NATS with filters) vs. minimal brokers (e.g. Kafka’s client-driven model)
There's also a fair amount of ideology/emotional attachment - some folks root for underdogs written in their favorite programming language, others reflexively dismiss anything that's not "enterprise-grade". And of course, vendors are always in the mix trying to steer the conversation toward their own solution.
If you’ve built a production system in the last few years:
1. What queue did you choose?
2. What didn't work out?
3. Where did you regret adding complexity?
4. And if you stuck with a DB-based queue — did it scale?
I’d love to hear war stories, regrets, and opinions.
98 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadExample: https://natsbyexample.com/examples/auth/callout/java
Mostly because it has been very reliable for years in production at a previous company, and doesn’t require babysitting. Its recent versions also has new features that make it is a descent alternative to Kafka if you don’t need to scale to the moon.
And the logo is a rabbit.
inb4 "oh but you wont be taken seriously" well... datadog.
For smaller projects of "job queues," I tend to use Amazon SQS or RabbitMQ.
But just for clarity, Kafka is not really a message queue -- it's a persistent structured log that can be used as a message queue. More specifically, you can replay messages by resetting the offset. In a queue, the idea is once you pop an item off the queue, it's no longer in the queue and therefore is gone once it's consumed, but with Kafka, you're leaving the message where it is and moving an offset instead. This means, for example, that you can have many many clients read from the same topic without issue.
SQS and other MQs don't have that persistence -- once you consume the message and ack, the message disappears and you can't "replay it" via the queue system. You have to re-submit the message to process it. This means you can really only have one client per topic, because once the message is consumed, it's no longer available to anyone else.
There are pros and cons to either mechanism, and there's significant overlap in the usage of the two systems, but they are designed to serve different purposes.
The analogy I tend to use is that Kafka is like reading a book. You read a page, you turn the page. But if you get confused, you can flip back and reread a previous page. An MQ like RabbitMQ or Sidekiq is more like the line at the grocery store: once the customer pays, they walk out and they're gone. You can't go back and re-process their cart.
Again, pros and cons to both approaches.
"What didn't work out?" -- I've learned in my career that, in general, I really like replayability, so Kafka is typically my first choice, unless I know that re-creating the messages are trivial, in which case I am more inclined to lean toward RabbitMQ or SQS. I've been bitten several times by MQs where I can't easily recreate the queue, and I lose critical messages.
"Where did you regret adding complexity?" -- Again, smaller systems that are just "job queues" (versus service-to-service async communication) don't need a whole lot of complexity. So I've learned that if it's a small system, go with an MQ first (any of them are fine), and go with Kafka only if you start scaling beyond a single simple system.
"And if you stuck with a DB-based queue -- did it scale?" -- I've done this in the past. It scales until it doesn't. Given my experience with MQs and Kafka, I feel it's a trivial amount of work to set up an MQ/Kafka, and I don't get anything extra by using a DB-based queue. I personally would avoid these, unless you have a compelling reason to use it (eg, your DB isn't huge, and you can save money).
It depends on your use case (or maybe what you mean by "client"). If I just have a bunch of messages that need to be processed by "some" client, then having the message disappear once a client has processed it is exactly what you want.
On the consumer side the duty cycle drives design. If it’s a steady flow then a polling listener is easy to right size. If the flow is episodic (long periods of idle with unpredictable spikes of high load) one option is to put a alarm on the queue that triggers when it goes from empty to non-empty, and handle that alarm by starting the processing machinery. That avoids the cost of constantly polling during dead time.
One thing to consider is whether you _want_ your producers to be aware of the clients or not. If you use SQS, then your producer needs to be aware of where it's sending the message. In event-driven architecture, ideally producers don't care who's listening. They just broadcast a message: "Hey, this thing just happened." And anyone who wants to subscribe can subscribe. The analogy is a radio tower -- the radio broadcaster has no idea who's listening, but thousands and thousands of people can tune in and listen.
Contrast to making a phone call, where you have to know who it is that you're dialing and you can only talk to one person at a time.
There are pros and cons to both, but there's tremendous value in large applications for making the producer responsible for producing, but not having to worry about who is consuming. Particularly in organizations with large teams where coordinating that kind of thing can be a big pain.
But you're absolutely right: queues/topics are basically free, and you can have as many as you want! I've certainly done it the SQS way that you describe many times!
As I mentioned, there are many paths to victory. Mine works really well for me, and it sounds like yours works really well for you. That's fantastic :)
I still would call that crazy, because of the mental tax of explaining to every new employee "wait, you're using IMAP for what?" but if it works for you, then great
We wanted replayability and multiple clients on the same topic, so we evaluated Kafka, but we determined it was too operationally complex for our needs. Persistence was also unnecessary as the data stream already had a separate archiving system and existing clients only needed about 24hr max of context. AWS Kinesis ended up being simpler for our needs and I have nothing but good things to say about it for the most part. Streaming client support in Elixir was not as good as Kafka but writing our own adapter wasn’t too hard.
[0] https://www.inkmi.com/blog/how-i-made-inkmi-selfhealing
However, I have noticed that oftentimes devs are using queues where Workflow Engines would be a better fit.
If your message processing time is in tens of seconds – talk to your local Workflow Engine professional (:
AWS Step Functions or GCP Workflows if you are on the cloud.
It has been submitted quite a few times but I don't readily see any experiences (pro or con) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/temporalio
So when selecting a message that isn’t started. It also looks for in progress ones that have been going longer than the timeout.
The update sets status, start time, and attempt counter.
If attempt counter equals 3 when the update happens, it sets the message to failed. The return looks at the stats sees failed and raises a notification.
Then if it’s a fix like correcting data or something I just reset the state to have it reprocess.
Never needed to track workers or cleanup jobs etc.
That row indicates you are the one processing the data and no one else should. When reading, abort the read if someone else wrote that row first.
When you are finished processing, hold the lock and update the row you added before to indicate processing is complete.
The timestamp can be used to timeout the request.
I have an idea of a project where even MySql/Maria is too much of admin burden.
You can use `PRAGMA data_version` on a dedicated thread to watch for changes and notify other waiters via a condition variable. It's not the nicest solution, because it's just a loop around a query, but it gets the job done.
A req-rep pattern can be done by doing a `INSERT ... RETURNING id` and having the the other side re-push into the same or a different message queue with an annotation referring to that id. Alternatively, you could have a table with a req, rep, and status column to coordinate it all.
It's far from everything you'd need from a complete, robust message broker, but for small single or multi-process message queue with a max of a few dozen readers and writers, it gets the job done nicely. In a single process, you can even replace the data_version loop thread with `sqlite3_commit_hook` on writers to notify readers that something has changed via the condition_variable.
Architecture info: https://explore.fednow.org/resources/technical-overview-guid...
For those unfamiliar, it's a Lua library that gets executed in Redis using one of the various language bindings (which are essentially wrappers around calling the Lua methods).
With our multi-node redis setup it seems to be quite reliable.