Re:Amazon Aurora Update – PostgreSQL Compatibility
by sorenbs on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @01:09PM
(#13073065)
Better performance, lower jitter, easy scalability. There's really no reason to not use Aurora.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Amazon Aurora Update – PostgreSQL Compatibility
by Rezo on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @01:49PM
(#13073476)
Aurora is more expensive, more so on the high-end, so it's not entirely clear that it is the best choice for all applications:
db.r3.8xlarge: RDS Aurora $4.640/h, RDS MySQL $3.780/h, RDS PostgreSQL $3.980/h
Re:Amazon Aurora Update – PostgreSQL Compatibility
by koolba on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @02:32PM
(#13073871)
> Aurora is more expensive, more so on the high-end, so it's not entirely clear that it is the best choice for all applications:
> db.r3.8xlarge: RDS Aurora $4.640/h, RDS MySQL $3.780/h, RDS PostgreSQL $3.980/h
Based on your numbers the difference in pricing between Aurora and Postgres ($4.64 - $3.98) x 24 * 30 = $475/mo. To the company using a db.r3.8xlarge, which has 32-cores and 244 GB of RAM, that's not even a rounding error.
Re:Amazon Aurora Update – PostgreSQL Compatibility
by dhd415 on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @01:53PM
(#13073511)
For many installations, an Aurora read replica can eliminate the need for a multi-AZ master instance which cuts the cost of your master instance in half.
Re:Amazon Aurora Update – PostgreSQL Compatibility
by fweespeech on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @04:16PM
(#13074758)
The failover guarantees with RDS Aurora are substantially better as long as you have 1+ read replicas.
That alone is worth the difference imo.