Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by geoduck14 1704 days ago
I see. Looking at the docs, the pricing for storing data is measured in Gigs (I think $1 per gig per month) - not Tb. This makes me think it is intended for smallish data.

I have a database now with 40 Tb - this would cost $40k a month just to store!
1 comments
reilly3000 1704 days ago
Yikes! I think this is really positioned for side projects and microservices. There is a clear path to migrating to a full instance or Postgres cluster over certain usage levels, but for many cases being able to scale to zero is still economically and operationally valuable.

40Tb is a ton-o-data! Snowflake sounds like a good fit.

link
geoduck14 1703 days ago
Yeah, they get style points for "scaling to zero". I've seen plenty of vendors who "are scalable" - but with a floor of $70k/yr.

I like their product offering - I'd be interested in using them for hobby projects, but not for work atm.

link