I'm curious why an RDS instance using PostgreSQL seems to cost more than one using SQL Server, especially when the SQL Server price includes licensing. The only reason I'm considering PostgreSQL is to avoid SQL Server's licensing fees, but here's what I found:
For PostgreSQL, the instance is priced at $86.51 USD for db.t4g.micro with 2 vCPUs and 1 GiB of memory. On the other hand, the SQL Server equivalent (which includes the license) is $67.71 USD for db.t3.micro, also with 2 vCPUs and 1 GiB of memory. Why is there such a price difference?
7 Answers
Don't forget, PostgreSQL also comes with machine learning capabilities, which you won’t find in many other databases. It's designed for production-level workloads and has solid architecture. As they say, quality often comes at a higher cost.
It seems like you might be missing a few details. For the SQL Server on a t3.micro, you're only getting the express version, which doesn't really come with a true license cost, plus it's only available in a single AZ. The PostgreSQL instance on t4g.micro usually defaults to multi-AZ, which can significantly raise the price. When I ran the numbers for both in a single-AZ setup, the PostgreSQL was around $13 and SQL Server was about $16 per month, which is much closer. If you can share how you got those prices, I could help you figure it out better.
Typically, a baseline cost for a single-AZ PostgreSQL instance on t4g.micro should be around $20 a month. So the $86 you mentioned likely has additional services enabled like multi-AZ or some features like RDS Proxy.
For better numbers, you should check this link: https://instances.vantage.sh/rds?id=5a598674f2740cd8bb334c848df9579d9d08a76e. You might be looking at Aurora PostgreSQL, which is significantly different from the standard PostgreSQL architecture.
That price for a micro PostgreSQL instance does seem high. Are you sure it doesn’t include replicas or something else extra in the pricing?
What edition of SQL Server are you referencing? Also, where did you find those specific prices? It looks like you're comparing two different instance types, which could definitely affect the cost.
I totally agree! Also, SQL Server has cheaper Web and Standard versions, but the Web version is only for public websites and isn't as flexible for enterprise solutions. That pushes users towards the pricier Standard version.