Amazon Aurora VS Google Cloud SQL

As far as the big players are concerned, Google offers AlloyDB (https://cloud.google.com/alloydb) while Amazon offers Aurora (https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/). - Source: Hacker News / 7 months ago

Aurora is a managed database service from Amazon compatible with MySQL and PostgreSQL. It allows for the use of existing MySQL code, tools, and applications and can offer increased performance for certain workloads compared to MySQL and PostgreSQL. - Source: dev.to / 9 months ago

See my other comment on this thread. More typically you'd use RDS for external DB. Aurora is a megascale version. Source: 11 months ago

If you get to a point where RDS cannot handle your work load you can migrate to Amazon Aurora: Https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/. Source: about 1 year ago

Just like how DB replication and load-balancers exists for ~20 years, SC is making far worse version of them under different name. So this "budget" thingy is just another distraction for cult to discuss, so the followers can claim "they know game development". Source: about 1 year ago

Cloud SQL: managed relational database service for MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server. - Source: dev.to / 4 months ago

All cloud platforms are going to have a Postgres database support. Google has something called AlloyDB that looks fantastic for reliability and scalability. Cloud SQL is a bit more standard though. Source: 12 months ago

Google SQL - not familiar with, does it solve the cons above? Source: about 1 year ago

Cloud SQL with MySQL as I can run it locally and know its queries will be expressive enough (where I am uncertain about Firestore, for instance). Source: over 1 year ago

For example, a Cloud Run Container is a provider for Services, whereas a Cloud SQL Server is a provider for databases. The providers are wrapped in parent containers that encapsulate the capabilities of their children. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago