3 ms·
You think so? Spanner looks more amazing to me but I haven't had the chance to try it yet. Aurora did half my teams query time over traditional MYSQL RDS thou
by mrep 9y ago
You think so? Spanner looks more amazing to me but I haven't had the chance to try it yet. Aurora did half my teams query time over traditional MYSQL RDS though.
- nemothekid 9y agoSpanner is very cool, but AFAIK you will only ever use it when you realize you need to use it. It costs a minimum of $400/mo (3 nodes, in a single region, triple that for multi region) and the API is non-standard (you can execute non-DML SQL against it, but DML queries are via RPC). Aurora, OTOH is very easy to setup, speaks both Postgres and MySQL which makes it a ton more accessible. Spanner is amazing, but I don't think it will get the distribution to be DBMS of the year. In that case, I really wish GCP had an Aurora-like solution. A standard-SQL database for applications on a pay-per-use model. Not having to lock your application into something like Cloud Datastore is nice and not having to teach people about it's weirdness is better.
- mrep 9y agoThe biggest google cloud sql instance is 5760$ a month on demand and 6681$ on AWS. Both of them are designed for very large scale datasets. I find little reason to lock yourself into aurora or spanner if a single RDBMS fits your needs for cheaper pricing.
- nemothekid 9y agoIt's my understanding that there is no (reduced) lock in with Aurora because its "just MySQL/Posgresql". Push comes to shove you can `mysqldump` it, just like you can do with Cloud SQL or RDS. Spanner is a completely different beast.