> I guess at certain volume, a serverless instance is meaningless since it’s always on anyway.
Bingo. The pricing alignment makes sense:
You share the risk of idle, but provided capacity with the provider: no fixed capacity for no fixed pricing.
The capex for the provider are fixed, though.
That's why I think more competition in the serverless Postgres space is fantastic: Sure, it's not a pure price competition, providers try to bundle with slightly different customer groups they focus on.
But underneath it, technology is being built which will make offering serverless ever more cost effective.
We might see a day where serverless (i.e. unbundeled storage and computed) with dedicated compute is cheaper than standalone GCP/ AWS/ Azure Postgres.
Bingo. The pricing alignment makes sense:
You share the risk of idle, but provided capacity with the provider: no fixed capacity for no fixed pricing.
The capex for the provider are fixed, though.
That's why I think more competition in the serverless Postgres space is fantastic: Sure, it's not a pure price competition, providers try to bundle with slightly different customer groups they focus on.
But underneath it, technology is being built which will make offering serverless ever more cost effective.
We might see a day where serverless (i.e. unbundeled storage and computed) with dedicated compute is cheaper than standalone GCP/ AWS/ Azure Postgres.