Hacker News Reader

Comment by vrosas | Hacker News Reader

I've pushed teams to choose Spanner over using Postgres (when already in the GCP ecosystem). It's not really more expensive when you sit down and do the math, you save untold hours of maintenance over the lifespan of the app, and it actually scales without fuss.

View on HN

Is it really not more expensive? I haven't operated a large scale Spanner cluster, but the numbers would suggest it's quite a bit more expensive. I suppose it's workload dependent is what you're saying?

I ran some rough numbers a while ago and I found single-region GCP Spanner to be the most cost-effective relational DB option (out of the ones I looked it) if you don't mind that it can't scale to zero (min $65/mo), if synchronous replication for durability is a must and you need serializability. It's more cost effective than any Aurora offering including DSQL (which isn't serializable afaik but even then).

what kind of maintenance?

I think one of the maybe less talked about benefits of distributed SQL is support for nearly transparent rolling upgrades of the database with very little impact to a running workload. Spanner is best in class at this.

Major version upgrades, HA, multi-master, sharding and georeplication are all stories that are not as out-of-the box simple as they should be at this point, IMHO. Then you layer on all the ways devs tend to abuse postgres (stored procedures, pubsub systems, re-indexing hot tables, etc) that will need hours and hours of debate + meetings + committees + design reviews + more meetings to settle. When all along the team probably could have just written the data to something like Firestore and been, like, totally fine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com