Overall Satisfaction with Google Cloud Spanner
Google Spanner is being used as a relational database in comparison to Amazon RDS. The issues we're having with Amazon RDS is scalability horizontally. We need a db for transactional use which is leaning towards the OLTP end. Amazon RDS helps us to a certain extent. Google Cloud Spanner was tested out for scalability, since we hit limits with Amazon RDS. The usage is used by the company product used internally and with consumers.
- Interleaved Tables
- Cross Table Transactional Support
- Support for Views
- Support for more databases (schemas).
- More index types that can be supported (Functional)
- Backups (ie table/data backup) if data is deleted or truncate by accident.
- Backups specifically if transactional data is deleted. Restoring made us lose time.
- Sharding on Horizontal level was quick and easy. Deployment and increasing nodes is easy
- Large dataset handling.
- ACID compliance
Spanner scales quickly compared to Amazon RDS. Azure Database is about the same as well. MongoDB can scale to horizontal scalability, however, because Mongo doesn't support full ACID, Spanner comes into that aspect. GCP Cloud SQL not as scalable as Spanner. Spanner has more functionality than MongoDB and Amazon RDS & Azure Databases.
Do you think Google Cloud Spanner delivers good value for the price?
Are you happy with Google Cloud Spanner's feature set?
Did Google Cloud Spanner live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of Google Cloud Spanner go as expected?
Would you buy Google Cloud Spanner again?
Google Cloud Spanner is suited for limitless horizontal scaling while maintaining strong consistency which needs to support ACID. NoSQL databases work in scaling but no ACID support. RDBMS support ACID, but horizontal scaling is not as great. The API it provides result in some limitations to related areas of the code, such as connection pools or database linking framework. So high # of connection pools can vary.