Google Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.
$0
per core hour
SingleStore
Score 7.5 out of 10
N/A
SingleStore aims to enable organizations to scale from one to one million customers, handling SQL, JSON, full text and vector workloads in one unified platform.
$0.69
per hour
Pricing
Google Cloud SQL
SingleStore
Editions & Modules
License - Express
$0
per core hour
License - Web
$0.01134
per core hour
Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
HA Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.09
per month per GB
License - Standard
$0.13
per core hour
Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.17
per month per GB
HA Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.18
per month per GB
HA Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.34
per month per GB
License - Enterprise
$0.47
per core hour
Memory
$5.11
per month per GB
HA Memory
$10.22
per month per GB
vCPUs
$30.15
per month per vCPU
HA vCPUs
$60.30
per month per vCPU
OnDemand
$0.69
per hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQL
SingleStore
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
Pricing varies with editions, engine, and settings, including how much storage, memory, and CPU you provision. Cloud SQL offers per-second billing.
I 100% prefer Google Cloud SQL over Amazon Aurora in terms of ease of use and clarity in terms of understanding how the autoscaling is going to work. Connecting to the database directly is also much more straightforward.
Setting up or migrating Google Cloud SQL is easy as compared to AWS. It has a good monitoring and logging mechanism and a good user interface which makes it easy to navigate.It also has a pay as you go pricing which makes it easier to reduce cost. Google Cloud SQL offers …
Actually Google Cloud SQL is similar to them, the difference is which engine each supports e.g. there's no managed Oracle DB in Google Cloud SQL but as long as you don't need Oracle, Google Cloud SQL should suffice and give you great user experience and performance. You also …
Google SQL was great as a first SQL provision. It quickly enabled the apps to be built and scaled as needed for a while. It was robust and adaptable as needed and easy to export as needed when ready, depending on growth. Cost-wise, it's a good choice and requires little …
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google …
When comparing cost, Google Cloud SQL typically offers a more straightforward and versatile plan than Azure SQL Database. Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL is a serverless solution provided by Google Cloud SQL that automatically modifies resources according to workload. For customers …
- AWS RDS and Aurora is a just a notch above Google Cloud SQL as it provide boost in performance when required - Google Cloud SQL Mysql Engine is Cloud based and better than native Mysql as it provides management of the server out of box - Compared to a MongoDB it has a low …
At first, we choose Google Cloud SQL only for demo purposes. It is so easy to set up and It is fully managed. we have worked with Azure SQL as well but Google SQL is more simple to use and It fully secure, reliable, provides high availability, and very Low Latency.
Easier learning, simple features and settings with a very user-friendly application environment and flexible prices make Google Cloud [SQL] a pioneering option over competitors
Google Cloud SQL is just as good as the other guys. We were already invested in GCP, which made the choice very easy. We did not want to start fresh in AWS or Azure. We used our existing GCP setup and just added Cloud SQL. It's unfortunate that companies continue to send people …
There are many options for cloud-hosted dedicated SQL instances. In many ways, simply moving from software and server-based database to a dedicated cloud database is just generally good. All hosts provide some sort of scaling and backup, and all separate the server management …
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …
The Google Cloud SQL offering fits into our development stack and was a clean replacement for our MySQL database. If we had been using SQL Server instead, then the offering from Azure would have made more sense. I have used both in the past and both work well, with GCP being …
It's dramatically faster than running MySQL on a VM, which is what we did before. Whatever Google has done to optimize Google Cloud SQL compared to standalone MySQL installations has worked.
I've used supabase and can say that Google Cloud SQL is a lot more hands off. They just run an instance for you and don't do much more than that. Which is exactly what we wanted. If you want something that is truly fully managed and abstracted then I guess that would be a …
I can only compare it with Exasol, which I have used a similar base, which manages the Hadoop scheme and is very similar to SingleStore. SingleStore has many advantages: being in the cloud, with just a couple of clicks I can increase the capacity, the configuration is super …
first of all SingleStoreis a cluster with high availability and easy to use. you need to design you tables / procedures such in a way that your SingleStore perform well and with handle heavy load
Reduces database sprawl, ETL costs, infrastructure expenses, etc. Supports horizontal scaling, unlike PostgreSQL & Aurora, and real-time analytics and fast transactions (HTAP), unlike Snowflake & ClickHouse.Handles high-volume workloads with thousands of concurrent queries. No …
SingleStore (memsql) out performs based on our analysis with sample data sets within org. We could see limitations with other products which SingleStore can overcall like scaling with data while performing with similar SLA. It also has the advantage of row store and column …
SingleStore outperforms Snowflake in real-time analytics and transactional workloads but lags in large-scale batch processing. Compared to MongoDB Atlas, SingleStore excels in complex SQL queries and joins, while MongoDB handles unstructured, document-based data better. Its …
Greenplum is good in handling very large amount of data. Concurrency in Greenplum was a major problem. Features available in SingleStore like Pipelines and in memory features are not available in Greenplum.
Gemfire was not scaling well like SingleStore. Support of both …
We previously used Bigquery for our application, and a single store gave us very good performance over Bigquery. But the comparison is not apples to apples, as Bigquery is more of a data warehousing solution.
SingleStore is just a bigger engine with more capability. Its ability to handle larger data sets with ease is its biggest advantage. These other database solutions are great for smaller scale projects that don't include large data sets but Singlestore greatly out performs in …
It has more APIs and other access methods. It has a multi-version concurrency control (MVCC) Distributed RDBMS that combines an in-memory row-oriented and a disc-based column-oriented storage with patented universal storage to handle transactional and analytical workloads in …
Its easier to query and faster. Ingestion is for the most part easier to understand and monitor and directly integrated with other storage solution products we use such as AWS S3. Singlestore overall is a better database to serve up an application large amounts of data very …
SingleStore is built for fast data ingestion and fast queries against large tables (> billions of rows). This is possible because of the column store engine that SingleStore uses. SingleStore also support a memory engine. Pipelines is also another big advantage. Being able to …
We knew early on that MySQL (Amazon Aurora) would not be suitable for this workload as it cannot query our time series data as fast as SingleStore. We also use MongoDB Atlas for another application but we could not achieve the raw speed we saw from SingleStore. Our technical …
We were initially using AWS Aurora which worked well at the time but as we grew it just felt like a lumbering beast - even with tier upgrades. We started looking at caching & search options to help make searches faster - we were already using redis. We looked at and even …
Timescale was the biggest alternative option we looked at for SingleStore, however the requirement to learn a new syntax (due to not being SQL compatible) was our biggest pain point.
Supporting a new language would require alterations to the Laravel framework, as this only …
SingleStore provides an abstraction layer in managing a sharded database solution reducing complexity for the FLOWD team. Coupled with the SingleStore Managed Service, we are partnering with SingleStore to provide FLOWD services to various utilities & councils.
SingleStore is eons faster than other database providers, and it absolutely crushes calculations & aggregations. While other providers may have a few quality of life enhancements over SingleStore, the speed benefits of SS far outweigh the cons. At the end of the day, speed …
SingleStore provides performance for real-time data analytics application where as Snowflake is more for data engineers and not fast enough for real-time data analytics apps.
As I said before, we felt that running queries on BigQuery for every query is really slow, especially from an user point of view. After seeing the drastically improved latency of SingleStore we decided to use to solve this issue. We currently use it to run low volume queries …
Does what it promises well, for instance, as a sidecar for the main enterprise data warehouse. However, I would not recommend using it as the main data warehouse, particularly due to the heavy business logic, as other dedicated tools are more suitable for ensuring scalable operations in terms of change management and multi-developer adjustments.
Well-Suited Scenarios: Real-Time Analytics: Financial trading platforms requiring instant insights. Operational Dashboards: Retail businesses monitoring live sales. IoT Data Processing: Smart device monitoring with high data ingestion. Fraud Detection: Banks detect suspicious transactions instantly. Less Appropriate Scenarios: Archival Storage: Cold data storage with infrequent access. Low-Volume Workloads: Small-scale apps with minimal data processing needs. Complex ETL Pipelines: Heavy data transformations without real-time demands.
It does not release a patch to have back porting; it just releases a new version and stops support; it's difficult to keep up to that pace.
Support engineers lack expertise, but they seem to be improving organically.
Lacks enterprise CDC capability: Change data capture (CDC) is a process that tracks and records changes made to data in a database and then delivers those changes to other systems in real time.
For enterprise-level backup & restore capability, we had to implement our model via Velero snapshot backup.
As with other cloud tools, users must learn a new terminology to navigate the various tools and configurations, and understand Google Cloud's configuration structure to perform even the most basic operations. So the learning curve is quite steep, but after a few months, it gets easier to maintain.
[Until it is] supported on AWS ECS containers, I will reserve a higher rating for SingleStore. Right now it works well on EC2 and serves our current purpose, [but] would look forward to seeing SingleStore respond to our urge of feature in a shorter time period with high quality and security.
When it comes to ingestion speed, SingleStore is probably at the top. Being able to create pipelines using SQL to ingest data from S3, Kafka, and other sources, is a great advantages. This means you can dynamically ingest data by customizing your SQL queries. SingleStore pipelines are pretty sophisticated, yet very simple. Few lines of codes and you are ingesting data, while still able to perform analytical queries on your billions of row tables.
GCP support in general requires a support agreement. For small organizations like us, this is not affordable or reasonable. It would help if Google had a support mechanism for smaller organizations. It was a steep learning curve for us because this was our first entry into the cloud database world. Better documentation also would have helped.
The support deep dives into our most complexed queries and bizarre issues that sometimes only we get comparing to other clients. Our special workload (thousands of Kafka pipelines + high concurrency of queries). The response match to the priority of the request, P1 gets immediate return call. Missing features are treated, they become a client request and being added to the roadmap after internal consideration on all client needs and priority. Bugs are patched quite fast, depends on the impact and feasible temporary workarounds. There is no issue that we haven't got a proper answer, resolution or reasoning
We allowed 2-3 months for a thorough evaluation. We saw pretty quickly that we were likely to pick SingleStore, so we ported some of our stored procedures to SingleStore in order to take a deeper look. Two SingleStore people worked closely with us to ensure that we did not have any blocking problems. It all went remarkably smoothly.
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google Cloud SQL with its nature and support.
Reduces database sprawl, ETL costs, infrastructure expenses, etc. Supports horizontal scaling, unlike PostgreSQL & Aurora, and real-time analytics and fast transactions (HTAP), unlike Snowflake & ClickHouse.Handles high-volume workloads with thousands of concurrent queries. No need for ETL processes, unlike BigQuery & Snowflake. Works with JSON, relational, and key-value data, unlike ClickHouse.
Lower operational complexity - Installation and maintenance is pretty easy
Object scale when used can compete with Traditional Warehouse Systems like Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum
Adds lot of value to the business like couple of operations which never worked in traditional DBMS including HANA, Oracle In Memory, SQL Server In Memory just flew in SingleStore