[OJFord]

> pay for compute by the second and storage by the byte. Very simple, transparent [...] Some of the ETL companies have tried to charge by number of rows loaded. That just feels too arbitrary to me, more disconnected from value incurred and quite risky.

Did you typo that the wrong way around? #rows seems way more connected to 'value incurred' for ETL than compute time to me. 'We help you load data, you pay by how much data you load' vs. 'we help you load data, you pay by how long it takes us'!

[IanCal]

Rows isn't the amount of data, and it has no link to how complicated it is to create/verify/store. I'd rather pay by time & actual storage.

Want to load a billion tiny rows of super simple data into snowflake? Cheap. Create a table out of really tricky nested joins/complex comparisons? Expensive.