[HN Gopher] PlanetScale Offering $5 Databases
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       PlanetScale Offering $5 Databases
        
       Author : ryanvogel
       Score  : 94 points
       Date   : 2025-10-30 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (planetscale.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (planetscale.com)
        
       | htrp wrote:
       | Going from 3 node highly available multi region DB clusters at
       | 30$ per month to 5$ a month for a single DB node
        
         | oompydoompy74 wrote:
         | Most people only need a single database node and will only ever
         | need a single database node. There are many LOB apps in the
         | world that you could reasonably turn off from 5 pm to 9 am
         | every day. Five 9's is an incredibly expensive and often
         | unnecessary feature. I think this is a great offering.
        
           | aquariusDue wrote:
           | Funnily enough I've been contemplating the idea of websites
           | open during business hours and such for "local" as in kinda
           | national scales. But it breaks down quickly once you factor
           | in a potentially global audience.
           | 
           | So yeah, in the end available as much as possible (while
           | sounding like "I needed it yesterday") might be the way to go
           | even if you're not actually aiming for the extreme end of
           | uptime.
        
             | ok_dad wrote:
             | B&h photo video closes their order system on Jewish
             | holidays in the NYC time zone. I often find myself saving
             | items to order the next day on there.
        
       | saxenaabhi wrote:
       | I wonder why other providers don't use metal ssd sync replication
       | technique that planetscale uses? Most of them just default to
       | EBS.
       | 
       | My interest in it peaked when I heard about NVMe over Fabrics
       | (NVMe/TCP) and SPDK from Xata[1] and apparently with that
       | performance is as good as planetscale metal, but planetscale
       | found their methodology flawed[2] and they Xata never responded.
       | 
       | [1] https://xata.io/blog/reaction-to-the-planetscale-
       | postgresql-...
       | 
       | [2] https://planetscale.com/benchmarks/xata
        
         | samlambert wrote:
         | It's very hard to do. They all want to do it but can't so now
         | it's their marketing team's jobs to lie to people about why
         | they shouldn't want it.
        
           | saxenaabhi wrote:
           | @samlambert what exactly makes it hard? Isn't it as simple as
           | setting synchronous_commit=remote_apply or does planetscale
           | have a custom strategy or are there other operational issues?
           | 
           | Just asking since I find it both the planetscale's
           | engineering and its impact on competitive landscape very
           | interesting.
        
             | samlambert wrote:
             | you have to make sure you will never terminate these nodes,
             | that you have all the operations maturity to cycle them
             | responsibly, and resize them. I am sure they will get there
             | one day but most people are still figuring out how to run
             | databases on k8s so it's a long road.
        
       | reducesuffering wrote:
       | I like PlanetScale, but they already have precedent very recently
       | for having a free-tier and then cancelling it for a minimum of
       | $40/month plan, which made many people switch. What's to stop
       | them from doing the same here?
       | 
       | Be wary of building a cheap hobby project on it expecting pricing
       | to stay consistent. If $40+ isn't feasible for you, you may be
       | trying to switch off to a hosted PostgreSQL option, with all the
       | pain MySQL->Postgres entails, soon.
        
         | samlambert wrote:
         | Why would we? we make a (small) profit on these cheaper tiers.
         | We are a sustainable and profitable company. Also the free tier
         | wasnt cancelled very recently it was 1.5 years ago so you are
         | reaching a bit here.
        
           | jszymborski wrote:
           | A bit of unsolicited advice:
           | 
           | This post is the first time I've heard of your company and
           | your blog post interested me.
           | 
           | When proprietors go to the mat in the comment section, I
           | immediately lose any interest in patronizing them.
        
             | samlambert wrote:
             | why is it going to the mat? i had to correct something that
             | was untrue. 1.5 years is not very recently.
        
               | bryanlarsen wrote:
               | 1.5 years ago is recently IMO.
        
             | mrbluecoat wrote:
             | I think it's great evening entertainment. Keep fanning the
             | flames while I go make some popcorn!
        
             | beoberha wrote:
             | Sam is a great twitter follow
        
               | samlambert wrote:
               | thank you
        
             | gdulli wrote:
             | I know comments section drama is fun, but I'm not seeing it
             | here and it feels like you're trying to create it from
             | scratch.
        
           | randomNumber7 wrote:
           | Why would a company squeeze customers after making them
           | dependendent? Never heard of it.
           | 
           | Also what was capitalism again?
        
             | samlambert wrote:
             | the reason we make sure all our products are gross margin
             | positive is so this doesn't have to happen.
        
               | czl wrote:
               | Your $5 plan may be gross margin positive but incentives
               | are to push users into higher margin plans and from this
               | pov this new plan looks much like your previous free plan
               | which was rug pulled. Offering a free service to buy
               | users then imposing migration costs on these users when
               | you rug pull damaged your reputation. Next time perhaps
               | grandfather existing users instead. If you want this new
               | plan to be taken seriously update your terms to promise
               | you will not rug pull again.
        
             | debo_ wrote:
             | This is a lazy response.
        
           | CryptoBanker wrote:
           | You _currently_ make a small profit on cheaper tiers. Things
           | change
        
         | carlm42 wrote:
         | (Planetscale employee) This is very different though: it's not
         | a free tier, it's an actual single node DB as a paid product.
         | It's definitely not a good fit for every usecase, but if you
         | have a hobby project it's a great way to start with plenty of
         | room to scale if/when you get actual usage
        
           | CryptoBanker wrote:
           | It's very similar in that it's not a huge source of revenue
           | for Planetscale, so easy to pull the rug without disrupting
           | revenue too much
        
             | samlambert wrote:
             | this makes no sense to me
        
               | CryptoBanker wrote:
               | It's easier to pull the rug out from under a group of
               | customers who earn you 5% of your revenue than it is to
               | do the same thing to a group of customers who make you
               | 25% of your revenue.
               | 
               | This small $5 plan is obviously not going to make
               | Planetscale very much revenue.
        
               | samlambert wrote:
               | but its entry level pricing for customers that grow. it
               | will be great for us. there is no point hurting our
               | reputation and slowing growth.
        
               | czl wrote:
               | You were buying flow for your sales funnel with a free
               | plan now you want to attract users with a low tier plan.
               | Your reputation was hurt with the first rug pull so why
               | be surprised that users expect another rug pull from you
               | in the future?
        
               | slig wrote:
               | It's not made to make money, but to funnel paid customers
               | onto their platform.
        
               | hennell wrote:
               | In what way? Companies drop/move on from small customers
               | all the time as positions and analysis changes. $5 a
               | month might make sense now, but with thin profits, a
               | lower than predicted "upgrade rate" and maybe a higher
               | than anticipated support cost etc and this becomes a less
               | profitable option without price increases, which loses
               | customers causing more increases because of none scalable
               | costs etc.
               | 
               | Throw in a change of leadership or business focus and
               | it's an easy short term boost to drop the many smaller
               | customers and focus on the big fish who make the real
               | money.
               | 
               | It's a common pattern, echoed over many industries, and
               | while you might not see it being likely here right now,
               | if the concept literally doesn't make sense to you, you
               | need to look up some basic business ideas because it's a
               | pretty valid concern.
        
             | carlm42 wrote:
             | Similarly to other replies (but my own opinion): it's not a
             | huge source of revenue _today_ , on a single customer
             | basis, compared to our biggest customers, sure. But our
             | goal is to provide potential customers that can't justify
             | larger scale, 3-nodes databases, something they can build
             | on and grow on our platform. We would never want to pull
             | the rug on paying customers: we want to enable them :-)
             | sure it's not a huge part of our revenue, but that's not
             | the goal. We just want to provide a great product, in a way
             | that's affordable to everyone. You of course don't have to
             | take my word, but I think it makes business sense to do
             | this and not pull the rug. Compare to a free tier where you
             | bleed money in the hopes that customers will end up paying
             | you. Hope isn't a good business strategy right? :-)
        
       | milindsoni201 wrote:
       | Stay away from them, You never know when they pull the rug
        
         | samlambert wrote:
         | pull the rug on what? a profitable product?
        
         | slig wrote:
         | How hard could it be to migrate away from $5/m worth of a
         | managed PG?
        
       | rileymichael wrote:
       | oh how i wish they were in azure. azure's postgresql flex
       | offering is horrid. for some reason the HA standby instance can't
       | be used as a read replica, it's filled with maintenance windows /
       | downtime-ful upgrades / etc..
        
       | quadrature wrote:
       | What does the durability story look like for this single node
       | offering ?.
        
         | samlambert wrote:
         | data is still replicated safely from the single node which is
         | also backed by EBS.
        
       | oulipo2 wrote:
       | Is it possible to install Timescale on those?
        
         | samlambert wrote:
         | we are working on the open source licensed version.
        
       | achristmascarl wrote:
       | How much vCPU, memory, and storage will this have?
        
       | timenotwasted wrote:
       | This is actually a really interesting offering to have available
       | as someone who needs DEV tier PG databases for a better testing
       | pipeline on a shoestring budget.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-10-30 23:01 UTC)