Last time I checked, the cockroach serverless pricing model and free tier were cheaper than planet scale for small projects. IIRC, the dedicated cloud product was also cheaper if you kept it utilized. What’s your evidence that planetscale is cheaper?
For example, planetscale charges 3x as much per gb of storage if I read the pricing correctly.
Cockroach is also doing 3x replication of the data, so I don’t think that’s particularly relevant here. Cockroach serverless will dynamically scale up sql serving processes based on load. The storage and compute are separated in the cockroach architecture. My point is that if your query load is relatively low, cockroach serverless is definitely cheaper because the storage costs dominate. I think there’s ambiguity on which product is cheaper for a real-world application with meaningful load and data size.
I remain curious about the perception that cockroach is a meaningfully more expensive product. Where does that idea come from?
For example, planetscale charges 3x as much per gb of storage if I read the pricing correctly.