6 ms·

Google's BigTable Costs 10 Times Less than Amazon's SimpleDB

12 points by pbnaidu 18y ago

SwellJoe 18y ago
I'm not sure I follow the math. How does one multiply to get less? 10 times 1 is 10. So, what exactly is "10 times 1 less"? Is it like a negative exponent? 1 to the -10 power? That would be less, but I've never heard anyone say "times" in reference to an exponent. I'm worrying too much over this, aren't I?
- izaidi 18y ago
  Yes. Fractions, dude.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    But the title did not say "1/10 times less", it said "10 times less".
    - izaidi 18y ago
      That's what the "less" implies, though, isn't it? "n times less" always means 1/n times as much (i.e., smaller by a factor of n).
- cperciva 18y ago
  1 to the -10 power? That would be less Well, no... 1^(-10) is still just 1. :-)
  - pmjordan 18y ago
    Whereas 10^(-1) is exactly what the author means.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    "Well, no... 1^(-10) is still just 1. :-)" OK, so I'm innumerate in the middle of the night, as well.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Yes, you're worrying too much over this. :) "X times less" is a common shorthand for one Xth as much.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Really? OK, I guess, but it still makes no sense.
boucher 18y ago
This claim is ridiculous. Amazon's pricing is clearly designed to get you to store as much structured data as possible in S3, and simply to store references to that data in SimpleDB. If you follow that model, the pricing is very similar.
- DocSavage 18y ago
  That isn't a claim, it's a simple observation that SimpleDB costs about ten times more than Google's datastore. You are absolutely right that SimpleDB is best used to return pointers to S3 data objects, and both the article and comments point out that actual costs depend on usage patterns. (Bandwidth costs will probably override database storage costs for many use cases.) Still, all the above doesn't change the fact that Google's distributed datastore is about a tenth the cost of Amazon's. You're just saying it doesn't matter in many usage scenarios.
  - boucher 18y ago
    Well, no, this is still misleading. One specific portion of the service costs 10x more, not the whole service. Furthermore, its the one part of the service that Amazon doesn't really expect you to use (hence the price). As you said, storage is not likely to be the most expensive part of your database anyway, so claiming "Google's BigTable Costs 10 Times Less than Amazon's SimpleDB" is misleading at best.
    - DocSavage 18y ago
      Well, no, it's still accurate. Amazon's SimpleDB is a separate service. If you are trying to store a very large number of relatively small objects, like sessions or digg-like data, the S3 pricing doesn't come into it. Once again, it's not a claim that Google's datastore is a tenth the price of Amazon's SimpleDB. It's simple observation. If you want to say "Using Amazon data services is as cheap or cheaper than Google AppEngine" or add other services to the comparison, that's your prerogative. But the comparison of pricing for two services is not a claim and it's certainly not "ridiculous."

12 points by pbnaidu 18y ago

I'm not sure I follow the math. How does one multiply to get less? 10 times 1 is 10. So, what exactly is "10 times 1 less"? Is it like a negative exponent? 1 to the -10 power? That would be less, but I've never heard anyone say "times" in reference to an exponent. I'm worrying too much over this, aren't I?

izaidi 18y ago
Yes. Fractions, dude.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  But the title did not say "1/10 times less", it said "10 times less".
  - izaidi 18y ago
    That's what the "less" implies, though, isn't it? "n times less" always means 1/n times as much (i.e., smaller by a factor of n).
cperciva 18y ago
1 to the -10 power? That would be less Well, no... 1^(-10) is still just 1. :-)
- pmjordan 18y ago
  Whereas 10^(-1) is exactly what the author means.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  "Well, no... 1^(-10) is still just 1. :-)" OK, so I'm innumerate in the middle of the night, as well.
randallsquared 18y ago
Yes, you're worrying too much over this. :) "X times less" is a common shorthand for one Xth as much.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Really? OK, I guess, but it still makes no sense.

boucher 18y ago

This claim is ridiculous. Amazon's pricing is clearly designed to get you to store as much structured data as possible in S3, and simply to store references to that data in SimpleDB. If you follow that model, the pricing is very similar.

DocSavage 18y ago
That isn't a claim, it's a simple observation that SimpleDB costs about ten times more than Google's datastore. You are absolutely right that SimpleDB is best used to return pointers to S3 data objects, and both the article and comments point out that actual costs depend on usage patterns. (Bandwidth costs will probably override database storage costs for many use cases.) Still, all the above doesn't change the fact that Google's distributed datastore is about a tenth the cost of Amazon's. You're just saying it doesn't matter in many usage scenarios.
- boucher 18y ago
  Well, no, this is still misleading. One specific portion of the service costs 10x more, not the whole service. Furthermore, its the one part of the service that Amazon doesn't really expect you to use (hence the price). As you said, storage is not likely to be the most expensive part of your database anyway, so claiming "Google's BigTable Costs 10 Times Less than Amazon's SimpleDB" is misleading at best.
  - DocSavage 18y ago
    Well, no, it's still accurate. Amazon's SimpleDB is a separate service. If you are trying to store a very large number of relatively small objects, like sessions or digg-like data, the S3 pricing doesn't come into it. Once again, it's not a claim that Google's datastore is a tenth the price of Amazon's SimpleDB. It's simple observation. If you want to say "Using Amazon data services is as cheap or cheaper than Google AppEngine" or add other services to the comparison, that's your prerogative. But the comparison of pricing for two services is not a claim and it's certainly not "ridiculous."