Has anyone been able to find specific pricing on this? All of the language I've seen about it has been vague. One of the things that's kept me from using RDS for toy projects is that it basically amounts to running another instance on top of what I already have. For a "real" project, that's a drop in the bucket, but for toys and prototypes, it can be a significant chunk of the cost (so I usually end up just running m…
Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
21–30 of 138 posts
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#22Has anyone been able to find specific pricing on this? All of the language I've seen about it has been vague. One of the things that's kept me from using RDS for toy projects is that it basically amounts to running another instance on top of what I already have. For a "real" project, that's a drop in the bucket, but for toys and prototypes, it can be a significant chunk of the cost (so I usually end up just running m…
Pricing is at http://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/pricing/ The cheapest is a db.r3.large for $0.29 / hr
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#23What is the use of a cloud relational database service? I thought everybody is going for Document Based databases.
If your data is fundamentally relational you're better off putting it into a relational DB. http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2013/11/11/why-you-should-never...
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#24oh neat, AWS following GCP instead of the other way around.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#25Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#26What is the use of a cloud relational database service? I thought everybody is going for Document Based databases.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#27Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#28Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#29Why mysql? Why not postgres engine?
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#30Why mysql? Why not postgres engine?
I'd agree with you from a technical perspective it would have been better to offer Postgres compatibility, rather than MySQL. But I believe the intent is to target both a bigger market (as of today) and challenge Oracle.