You currently have transactional data stored on-premises in a PostgreSQL database. To modernize your data environment, you want to run transactional workloads and support analytics needs with a single database. You need to move to Google Cloud without changing database management systems, and minimize cost and complexity. What should you do?
To modernize your data environment while keeping the same database management system and minimizing cost and complexity, the best option is to migrate your PostgreSQL database to Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL. Cloud SQL is a fully managed service that handles maintenance, backups, and updates, which aligns with minimizing complexity. Additionally, since Cloud SQL directly supports PostgreSQL, it avoids the need to change database systems, thereby minimizing additional costs associated with migrating and training on a new system. This option supports both transactional workloads and analytics through federated queries, making it an optimal choice.
Minimize cost. https://cloud.google.com/alloydb?hl=en AlloyDB offers superior performance, 4x faster than standard PostgreSQL for transactional workloads. That does not come without cost.
- AlloyDB is a fully managed, PostgreSQL-compatible database service with industry-leading performance.
Why not D
https://cloud.google.com/alloydb#all-features The requirement is to minimize cost and complexity. Cloud SQL would be the best choice.
AlloyDB for PostgreSQL is a fully managed, PostgreSQL-compatible database service that's designed for your most demanding workloads, including hybrid transactional and analytical processing. ref: https://cloud.google.com/alloydb/docs/overview
Considering the cost factor, I'll go with D. If "minimize cost" is not present in the question, then I'd go with 'B' AlloyDB. Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL: Generally less expensive than AlloyDB. AlloyDB: Can be significantly more expensive due to its advanced features and high performance capabilities.
minimize cost and complexity
They currently have transactional data stored on-premises in a PostgreSQL database and they want to modernize their database that supports transactional workloads and analytics .If they select cloud Sql (postgreSQL) it will minimize the cost and complexity. and for analytics purpose they can create federated queries over cloudSql(postgreSql) https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/federated-queries-intro This approach will minimze the cost
Because AlloyDB is optimised for hybrid transactional and analytical processing (HTAP), meaning you can run both transactional workloads and analytics on the same database with excellent performance.
AlloyDB is for large scale and more expensive. We want to minimize cost and complexity, so the answer is D.
In real life clearly how performant it needed to be would be a massive factor. AlloyDB is more expensive (see https://cloud.google.com/alloydb/pricing, vs https://cloud.google.com/sql/pricing), but when they say "minimise cost" is that per query, or is it per year assuming similar instance size. There's no way for us to know, we have to guess. I'm guessing AlloyDB, as the question seem to be telegraphing that, but it could just as easily be CloudSQL postgres based on the cheaper costs. We simply cannot know.
B AlloyDB es la mejor opción para modernizar el entorno, mantener compatibilidad con PostgreSQL y manejar tanto cargas transaccionales como analíticas en un único sistema, minimizando costos y complejidad.
Database Migration Service makes it easier for you to migrate your data to Google Cloud. This service helps you lift and shift your PostgreSQL workloads into Cloud SQL.
B. Migrate your workloads to AlloyDB for PostgreSQL.
Sorry its D. Migrate your PostgreSQL database to Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL.
It's a little complicated, considering it says minimize costs (Cloud SQL) and run transactional workloads and support analytics needs (AlloyDB). I consider B. because you can minimize costs in the long-term instead of doing it immediately with possible extra costs in the long-term. Think about it
AlloyDB
"support analytics needs" -> columnar storage -> AlloyDB
The question specifies that the analytical needs need to reside in a single database. This can't be done using Cloud SQL. The database that supports all of that is AlloyDB that's why I will go with the B answer.
B. Migrate your workloads to AlloyDB for PostgreSQL.
B - minimize cost Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL: Generally less expensive than AlloyDB, especially for smaller deployments. AlloyDB: Can be significantly more expensive due to its advanced features and high performance capabilities.
so answer D?
Cloud SQL natively supports PostgreSQL AlloyDB for PostgreSQL is a great option if you're specifically looking for high performance in both transactional and analytical workloads. However, it might be more complex and costly than Cloud SQL
While B looks good too but It’s more expensive than Cloud SQL and better suited when you need advanced analytics and heavy transactional performance. I think it is an Overkill if you're looking to minimize cost/complexity which the question states.
The correct answer is B. Migrate your workloads to AlloyDB for PostgreSQL. Here's why: Your requirements are: Run both transactional and analytics workloads in a single database Stay with PostgreSQL (don't change database systems) Minimize cost and complexity AlloyDB for PostgreSQL is specifically designed for this scenario - it's fully PostgreSQL-compatible but optimized for both transactional and analytical workloads. It offers: PostgreSQL compatibility (minimizing migration complexity) Enhanced analytics capabilities with column store indexes Better performance for mixed workloads
AlloyDB for PostgreSQL is a fully managed, PostgreSQL-compatible database service offered by Google Cloud. It's designed for high-performance transactional and analytical workloads and offers performance and scalability benefits over standard PostgreSQL. While it meets the requirement of not changing the database system in a broad sense (as it's PostgreSQL-compatible), it's a different service than standard PostgreSQL and might introduce a level of complexity and cost beyond simply migrating to Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL.