Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelmior | Hacker News Reader

I'm not aware of any other services which offer pricing that isn't based on number and size of database servers.

Edit: Thanks to all the commenters who corrected me :)

It's entertaining that one can make an innocent HN comment about something esoteric like cloud databases and be quickly corrected by three different Google engineers.

To provide a non-Google example, AWS DynamoDB's pricing is based on throughput (similar to Google Cloud Datastore).

Heh. :)

One technicality: DynamoDB's pricing is based on throughput, as you know, but it's provisioned throughput. (You manage your capacity unit allocations yourself, at least that was the case a little while ago.) You're charged money for how much you provision regardless of whether or not you actually consume the capacity units. Our pricing model (like Fauna's) only takes ops and storage into consideration.

Ah, so just like SDB. I wonder why AWS moved on from that model.

I thank you for the compliment, but I am a lowly PM rather than an engineer, that doesn't find Cloud Databases [1] any more esoteric than the Cloud in general. :)

You'll probably find there are a lot of distributed database geeks at Google, me included, so we all get attracted to exciting posts on new distributed systems.

[1]: http://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/68

I can vouch for itcmcgrath's lowliness.

One of the reasons I love HN :)

Firebase's Realtime Database does this, too.

https://firebase.google.com/pricing/

(Disclosure: I work on Cloud Datastore, which is another Google Cloud product; it, too, does pricing based on ops and storage rather than provisioning, as my colleagues note.)

Cloud Datastore does exactly that:

https://cloud.google.com/datastore/pricing

Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (and sit near the Datastore team!)

Take a look at Cloud Datastore's pricing, which is probably a leader in this area (I work on it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com