The discussion revolves around testing AlloyDB on Google Cloud as a potentially cost-effective alternative to PostgreSQL. jimmy0017 notes that AlloyDB is promoted as 100% PostgreSQL-compatible and cheaper than standard PostgreSQL, citing a Google Cloud blog post. Falco shares experience with Aurora’s PostgreSQL compatibility, suggesting AlloyDB may work similarly, but questions the risk-reward trade-off given Discourse’s scalability on a single managed PostgreSQL instance. jimmy0017 confirms cost is the main incentive. Falco asks about the current GCP PostgreSQL instance specs, which jimmy0017 details as 8 vCPUs, 64 GB RAM, 596 GB SSD, and 375 GB data cache. merefield questions the scale, leading jimmy0017 to clarify that the platform serves about 2.5k daily active users, with a total of 28k users identified via a data explorer query.
I saw AlloyDB is being promoted on Google cloud. https://cloud.google.com/products/alloydb?hl=en
Price of it is cheaper than the PostgreSQL. Per this article
I am wondering if anybody tried using this instead of PostgreSQL since Google claims that it is 100% PostgreSQL-compatible.
I tested on Aurora when it launched the PostgreSQL compatibility and it worked pretty well back then, so I assume it will be the same here.
That said, Discourse scales pretty well on a single managed PostgreSQL vertically, so I’m interested in how much activity you see that trying something like this would make sense from a risk-reward perspective.
Yeah.. that’s true..
The only incentive for us was the price seems to be a bit lower.
Which instance type are you using for the GCP PostgreSQL instance?
Our current one is this:
vCPUs: 8
Memory: 64 GB
SSD storage: 596 GB
Enterprise Plus edition
Data Cache is enabled (375 GB)
That’s enormous.
How many active users do you serve?
On admin dashboard, daily participating user is about 2.5k.
I ran this query with count and got 28k.