[HN Gopher] RDS vs. PlanetScale: Pricing Considerations
___________________________________________________________________
RDS vs. PlanetScale: Pricing Considerations
Author : samlambert
Score : 56 points
Date : 2022-01-12 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vantage.sh)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vantage.sh)
| wizwit999 wrote:
| Interesting, a more direct comparison is probably Aurora and they
| seem to have similar pricing.
| StratusBen wrote:
| Hey there - I'm the author of the post. It's a really good call
| out and something we're thinking about as a future post in the
| series.
|
| When we took a look at RDS costs, the vast majority of
| customers are using "raw" RDS. So the hope with doing this
| analysis (which was definitely a bit trickier to do) was to try
| and purposefully compare that with PlanetScale as that seems to
| be the "true" customer anchor.
| SomeCallMeTim wrote:
| But...MySQL? Sigh...
|
| I migrated to PostgreSQL later than most, and I've still be using
| Postgres for six years...
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Maybe I am being cynical here, but one advantage of AWS is that
| when it goes down, the whole online world looks like it is on
| fire.
|
| So if you have a database on AWS, and AWS goes down, you likely
| don't even need to tell your CEO that AWS is down, they already
| probably know that from the news or because their favorite
| website/app is also down.
|
| However, if PlanetScale goes down, likely everything else appears
| to be working except yours.
| mayank wrote:
| I don't think this is cynical, it's a restatement of the
| "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" adage. Choosing PlanetScale
| at this stage in its market penetration is almost certainly
| going to be seen as the riskier business choice over RDS Aurora
| (even though it's not quite apples:apples) or GCP Spanner
| (which is). You can choose to spend your innovation token
| there, but you better be prepared for the downside when
| PlanetScale goes down and everything else is up.
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| I love the Innovation Token blog post, but. it's been a while
| since I've seen the OG post. Do you have a link?
| alexjurkiewicz wrote:
| http://boringtechnology.club/
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| I have my problems with this statement mostly because IBM
| actually does suck. The amount of products its bought and
| promptly did a full thrust crash into the ground are many.
| AWS has its problems but 99.99999% of the time the "core"
| products perfectly fine, I dont know about its multitude of
| side-hustles though.
| kupopuffs wrote:
| IBM used to be good
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| I think you're missing the context that the adage "nobody
| gets fired for buying IBM" dates back to the 1970s at
| least. It's not meant to refer to IBM as it is now, but
| rather to IBM as it was then, an industrial behemoth with a
| near monopoly on business machines, some of which happened
| to be general purpose computers.
| daenney wrote:
| PlanetScale probably runs on AWS or GCP, so that's a solved
| problem (:
| orf wrote:
| Cool, one poorly optimised query that scans a 500 million row
| table will cost you 75$ for the scan alone. Assuming a 100gb
| table that's an additional $125.
|
| Per. Query.
| samlambert wrote:
| We have features coming that will make this not a problem for
| people.
| phoenix24 wrote:
| is that feature called - automatic query optimization?
| orf wrote:
| Awesome! I like the idea of the product, but the pricing
| structure is really really risky and makes it a hard sell. At
| least with AWS the price is fixed instead of "possibly cheap
| or possibly the most expensive thing you can ever imagine".
|
| It's hard to know how you'd get rid of this problem: either
| you block terrible queries (bad for services) or have some
| price caps/forgiveness (bad for you).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-12 23:01 UTC)