Live data from Hacker News

AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

cloud.google.com

11–20 of 80 posts

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#11
Hugely disappointed by Alloydb. Price and performance for a write heavy workload where off the charts horrible. It didn’t even support disabling an instance and it did only storage autoscaling much worse overall experience than using Aurora we moved back to cloudsql.

Does someone have good experience with Alloydb?

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#12

Has Google contributed some of these changes back to Postgres? I went looking and even a search for "alloydb" in some postgres mailing lists return no results. It has some very exciting features, I was a bit surprised to see nobody talking about it.

If I understand correctly, AlloyDB is a Postgres compatible re-implementation, so there's no shared code. So this is a bit like Wine compared to Windows, only with the big corp re-implementing the OSS software instead of the other way round.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#13

Google Cloud gets a lot of heat because of Google's legacy of killing things off (the exact opposite of what enterprise decision makers want when selecting a cloud platform). But I have to applaud Google for the excellent first party emulators and local tooling that they provide (Alloy Omni doesn't seem like an emulator on first readthrough, but enabling fast local iteration has the same effect). The Firebase emulato…

Definitely not an emulator. It's fully AlloyDB...in a container. We'll be working moving forward to smooth out the install process (tech preview, focus was on getting it in y'alls hands). In my mind, it's a proper Postgres drop-in replacement (Yes, of course I'm biased because I work at Google) but the tech is legit.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#14

Has Google contributed some of these changes back to Postgres? I went looking and even a search for "alloydb" in some postgres mailing lists return no results. It has some very exciting features, I was a bit surprised to see nobody talking about it.

Not as of yet, no. I've gently nudged the eng/product teams in this direction, but for now it's all being kept in-house.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#15

That’s incredible. I wasn’t expecting them to allow you to run AlloyDB on premise but this is a potential game changer for on-prem Postgres instances, especially if you are doing analytical queries on the same data set.

That's how I've been thinking/talking about it. It should be a drop-in replacement for Postgres. Obviously the install process isn't as smooth yet, but, technical preview...

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#16
post #5

I wonder how they make transactional workloads 2x faster vs normal Postgres The analytics workloads improvements seem pretty straightforward (or at least there is prior art like timescale)

> I wonder how they make transactional workloads 2x faster vs normal Postgres

There can be improvements like what OrioleDB is trying to do: https://github.com/orioledb/orioledb/

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#17

Hugely disappointed by Alloydb. Price and performance for a write heavy workload where off the charts horrible. It didn’t even support disabling an instance and it did only storage autoscaling much worse overall experience than using Aurora we moved back to cloudsql. Does someone have good experience with Alloydb?

I have many thoughts here...but let's start with: Do you have your process of how you tested performance? My guess is the eng team would love to look at what you tested.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#18
I see, not open source, ambiguous long term licensing, or even a commitment to a forever free.

I did notice the release reads just like an internal AWS PR with Andy’s preferred structure… guess all those aws folks they recruited are making an impact.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#19

Google Cloud gets a lot of heat because of Google's legacy of killing things off (the exact opposite of what enterprise decision makers want when selecting a cloud platform). But I have to applaud Google for the excellent first party emulators and local tooling that they provide (Alloy Omni doesn't seem like an emulator on first readthrough, but enabling fast local iteration has the same effect). The Firebase emulato…

Definitely not an emulator. It's fully AlloyDB...in a container. We'll be working moving forward to smooth out the install process (tech preview, focus was on getting it in y'alls hands). In my mind, it's a proper Postgres drop-in replacement (Yes, of course I'm biased because I work at Google) but the tech is legit.

I’ve gotta say without unambiguous and long term unencumbered licensing, preferably with open source attached, I can’t foresee recommending any place I’ve got influence at to even look at it yet. Hopefully you can push them in a direction that is plausibly usable by anyone other than hobbyists. Even as a local dev tool it leaves too many holes open in the licensing and distribution model. Letting a team build a process and workflow around a time bomb would be negligence. It’s sad to characterize this as such, but we’ve all been burned too many times by globo mega corp whims.

Re: AlloyDB Omni – run AlloyDB anywhere

#20

Google Cloud gets a lot of heat because of Google's legacy of killing things off (the exact opposite of what enterprise decision makers want when selecting a cloud platform). But I have to applaud Google for the excellent first party emulators and local tooling that they provide (Alloy Omni doesn't seem like an emulator on first readthrough, but enabling fast local iteration has the same effect). The Firebase emulato…

Definitely not an emulator. It's fully AlloyDB...in a container. We'll be working moving forward to smooth out the install process (tech preview, focus was on getting it in y'alls hands). In my mind, it's a proper Postgres drop-in replacement (Yes, of course I'm biased because I work at Google) but the tech is legit.

> it's a proper Postgres drop-in replacement

The only downside I see is that going through the deployment process, it seems that the smallest instance I can provision is 2vCPU/16GB which if I'm looking at the pricing table correctly, equates to $230/mo. for a single instance.

The web console only lets me create a cluster with minimum 2 instances so it seems like I'm looking at $460 minimum to deploy Alloy. That feels a bit excessive.

Post reply on HN