3 ms·
> We spend months to migrate our product to PostgreSQL Which means you presumably saved months initially by using Azure, and got your product to market sooner.
by dandelany 10y ago
> We spend months to migrate our product to PostgreSQL
Which means you presumably saved months initially by using Azure, and got your product to market sooner. Everyone should be aware of the dangers of lock-in, and should carefully consider the value of it vs. the liability they're taking on. But I wouldn't say never use products like this. The value-add can be significant, even taking into account the fact that you may have to migrate off of it someday.
- CobrastanJorji 10y agoThat MIGHT be true, but it's not apparent from their statement. Just because it costs N to build a product on technology X and costs M to migrate an existing product to technology Y does not mean that it would have cost N + M to implement the product on technology Y in the first place.
- carolus4 10y agoI think the point made above is that it's enough for implementation(X) < implementation(Y) in order to sway some people to technology X. Rapid prototyping is an example of this, since the time-value of feedback is higher before the product is well defined.
- dandelany 10y agoYou are correct of course, my point is that even if cost(implementing Y originally) < cost(implementing X and later migrating to Y) it may still be worth it, because the cost has been deferred. Time is often a lot more valuable in early stages of a startup.
- vacri 10y agoFrom experience, changing databases on a product in flight is not trivial. Even moving our production database from an external vendor to an in-house location (exact same database engine and version) was a decent-size task, and would have been much, much easier with greenfields or a chunk of downtime.