3 ms·

I'm actually impressed at how incredibly expensive they made this. $0.50 per million 1KB writes, which is 20x what aurora charges, since aurora allows 8KB write

I'm actually impressed at how incredibly expensive they made this. $0.50 per million 1KB writes, which is 20x what aurora charges, since aurora allows 8KB writes. And Aurora is already expensive if you actually read/write to it.

ravedave5 8y ago
I get the feeling this is for important data (banking etc) so I have a feeling this is 200x cheaper than whatever else is available.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  That's not what is says in the release: "With Timestream, you can easily store and analyze log data for DevOps, sensor data for IoT applications, and industrial telemetry data for equipment maintenance."
coder543 8y ago
I really don't think it's 20x the cost of Aurora in general, considering that Aurora costs are not that simple, but I don't have time to run the numbers, so let's go with that for a moment. Do you really think Amazon would introduce a product that's 20x as expensive if they didn't know there was a market for it?
barake 8y ago
The pricing lines up with CloudWatch Logs, 50 cents/GB, 3 cents/GB/month. Curious to see what the query language is for this, wonder if they're just exposing the backing store for CloudWatch as a service now.
abalone 8y ago
> $0.50 per million 1KB writes, which is 20x what aurora charges, since aurora allows 8KB writes. That's a weird comparison. 20x is only true if you write 8KB with every entry, and you haven't included the storage and instance savings. It's not hard to come up with suboptimal scenarios where this is more expensive, but that's missing the point. It's optimized for a specific kind of usage pattern.