As a general feedback I have written it down here before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304376 Sorry for

As a general feedback I have written it down here before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304376 Sorry for being a bit negative but I was very excited for AlloyDB as a potential serverless offering for Postgres. Especially after having good experience with Aurora. And we ended up wasting a decent amount of resources migrating to and then away from it, thus my frustration. In our use-case we use Postgres essentially as a cache. We have many cloud runs (approx 100) writing a lot of data in parallel which we then on a schedule query in certain ways and put it to GCP. Its quite a bit of data, about 1 TB a day. It was a very CPU bound effort and to get acceptable performance we had to rely on the 8 core configuration, and we couldn't reduce the memory (from 64). We were getting similar performance with a 4 core 8gb Cloud Sql instance. Probably not the most representitive workload but this had exactly the opposite effect to what we wanted (e.g. much more wasted resources and less serverless). Also the fact you couldn't disable it was an absolute joke (we have prod dev and staging env and if we have to have a big always running DB for each of them, you can see how that is unacceptable). We are happy with CloudSql though.