7 ms·
Google Cloud SQL: your database in the cloud
- Pewpewarrows 15y agoIf this means not having to be locked into App Engine's proprietary database shenanigans for even considering using it to deploy a project, then Google just made it back onto my list of useful PaaS providers.
- alnayyir 15y agoIf this means "auto-scaling" SQL database-to-go then they've made it back on my list for that reason as well.
- hartror 15y agoMy feelings exactly. It was always a blocker before, being locked to a provider is murder.
- MaurizioPz 15y agoUsing a database wrapper like http://www.sienaproject.com/ http://www.sienaproject.com/ you wouldn't be locked.
- dendory 15y agoAs far as I can tell this is just for App Engine stuff, with APIs for Python and Java. They could have opened it up to the web with REST APIs or something similar. Am I wrong?
- slig 15y agoWouldn't the latency be a huge issue?
- alnayyir 15y agoYou're correct, but Google isn't in the business of providing useful services/code for non-frontend programmers. Cf. Them not open sourcing anything remotely useful outside of their JS stuff.
- alexandros 15y agoWhat stops you from writing a GAE app to do just that? There's papers out there on how to map SQL to REST APIs, I've written a few myself.
- zobzu 15y agoGotta love the ways you have to literally just give away your data to Google.
- thematt 15y agoThe other cloud providers have similar offerings. It has nothing to do with Google.
- zobzu 15y agosame issue. most of the time its google tho. their business is based on it and theyre good at it.
- Pewpewarrows 15y ago> Gotta love the ways you can optionally give away your data to any third-party service provider. Fixed
- jamesbritt 15y agoFixed Please don't do that.
- zobzu 15y agoways with an s. its called english :-) unfortunately many just misread it because the comment emits criticism.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- streptomycin 15y ago> Gotta love the ways you can elect to give away your data to any third-party service provider. Fixed
- dannyr 15y ago> Gotta love the ways you can CHOOSE to give away your data to any third-party service provider. Fixed
- jshen 15y agoMy biggest complaint with Heroku is that they don't have a database offering between $15/month and $200/month. This addition to app engine makes them more appealing than heroku at this point.
- andypants 15y agoNothing has been said on pricing yet. It's free while it's still in developer preview. Pricing will be revealed later. But even if it ends up being a 'mess' like app engine's pricing situation, it should be much easier to move onto another platform.
- matan_a 15y agoTrue, but since they sit on AWS, you can just use Amazon RDS with your Heroku app on a small instance and be just fine.
- jshen 15y agoWhich starts around $80/month. There is still a hole there.
- riffraff 15y agobut a reserved instance for a year is $227, which is not far from $15 a month.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jshen 15y agoThanks, I missed the reserved instances somehow.
- jbarham 15y agoThis is misleading. The reservation fee for a small instance is $227.50 annually (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/) but you still pay an hourly rate to run it, albeit a lower rate than for a non-reserved instance. Running a small reserved instance for a year costs $227.50 + ($0.03 x 24 x 365) => $490.3/year or $40.86/month. (This is in the US East region.)
- ww520 15y agoThe buzz word scalability is not in the blog. I assume it's just a shared MySQL server like the shared hosting vendors offered.
- defrex 15y agoThis should make App Engine a fantastic place to host Django projects.
- njharman 15y agoExcept every Django project I've done last several years is PostgreSQL not MySQL. And I assume still all the other issues; e.g background tasks, processing time.
- chrismsnz 15y agoWho cares what DB it is when you don't have to manage it? Django's data access layer is abstracted so it's actually pretty easy to migrate between.
- njharman 15y agoI care much, much more when I don't manage it cause I've relinquished control to 3rd party. Because I need to use it. Because I need to build features such as GIS, full text search, transactions. Features who's existence and level of maturity varies wildly across DB platforms.
- libria 15y agoWow, does that mean we finally get full text search (i.e., LIKE '%%')? Bonus points for OR, JOIN's and multiple inequality filters. Since they forbid these operations on the datastore, I'm guessing this will either not scale as well or be significantly more expensive. Since the sign up sheet implies you can combine technologies, I suppose you can use a "hybrid" approach and keep denormalized data in the datastore.
- bdonlan 15y agoYep, it currently limits you to a 10G database size. Makes sense, though - SQL techniques like LIKE filters or joins really do require all of your data to be in memory with a very high-bandwidth, low latency interconnect - ie, it all has to be in memory on a single box. This is the reason the datastore forbids these operations - because they're extremely difficult to efficiently implement and still scale indefinitely (without making other, potentially very large sacrifices).
- wulczer 15y agoWhat? A join requires all of your data to be in memory? I've sure as hell seen databases that executed queries with joins and the data was not entirely in memory...
- bdonlan 15y agoWell, sure, it doesn't _require_ it. But the alternative is higher query latency. You have to collect a filtered set of the join column from table A, then ship them over to the servers responsible for table B. If your interconnect has high latency or low bandwidth, this can be painful - particularly if the intermediate set of keys is very large. Hence why the datastore simply disallows this - yes, it's _possible_ to make joins work on larger datasets. But it's not possible to make _arbitrary_ joins work well on larger datasets.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoJoins on indexed columns don't require anything apart from the index to be in memory in order to do the filtering.
- jsr 15y agoHow scalable is this? Are there capacity or transaction rate limits on Cloud SQL?
- dsl 15y agoYou get MySQL instances, just like Amazon RDS. All the limitations of MySQL in the real world still apply.
- rhizome 15y agoGoogle: bringing the reliability of the Internet to relational databases!
- riffraff 15y agohonestly, after what happened last time, this Cloud SQL is available free of charge for now, and we will publish pricing at least 30 days before charging for it. Seems a lot less nice.
- andypants 15y agoAgreed, but the difference is that it should be far easier to migrate away if anything turns out badly for you.
- cowkingdeluxe 15y agoAnd the fact that Google likes to shut down services.
- antoncohen 15y agoI'm really curious how they implemented this. They say "data is replicated synchronously to multiple data centers." Synchronously MySQL replication over a WAN is pretty impressive. As others have said, this post doesn't mention scalability.
- ww520 15y agoThere are disk device level replication like DRBD that mirrors disks synchronously across network. It's a generic solution for any disk mirroring. MySQL just sits on top of it. Google probably got some super fast cross datacenter links to allow fast replication. Still the latency will be worse than local mirroring for synchronously replication.
- nl 15y agoI believe they (Google) has a MySQL backend implemented on BigTable. (I don't think that is officially announced but it was mentioned - somewhat accidentally - at a public Google event.)
- ShabbyDoo 15y agoI didn't see any references to ways by which one might use the special JDBC driver to access one's hosted MySQL data. It would be cute to create an app which proxies JDBC calls so that developers can use TOAD/DBViz/whatever to manipulate remote data. Such a driver might also be useful for one-off schema migration tasks. Did I miss something?
- brown9-2 15y agoIt seems pretty doubtful you would be able to use this to access the hosted data remotely.
- ShabbyDoo 15y agoThis is huge for allowing corps to migrate apps onto Google's cloud. Many open source web frameworks can be used on GAE (albeit with limitations), but de-SQLing an existing app is probably a non-starter for most corporate dev groups. Even if scale-up is an issue past some threshold, the long tail of most mid-sized companies' in-house apps includes a bunch of semi-legacy ones which don't have very high usage levels. Think about stuff like the environmental regulation compliance database -- important, but probably not used by more than 10's of people.
- tybris 15y agoI don't know of it's so huge for corps. They tend to not mind spending the extra money to get EC2 + RDS in return for reduced lock-in, an environment you can control, and serious SLAs.
- mark_l_watson 15y agoI hope that the cost ends up being purely research based. I might use this for a few apps that have very limited database requirements. If my database is small and I run relatively few transactions per day then I hope that the cost is minimal. If there is a large minimum charge then that would be a showstopper for my use.
- gabi38 15y agoIs there any area that google don't stick their nose in? Now they are also in the DB business??