ScyllaDB vs turbopuffer

ScyllaDB Cloud uses transparent, resource-based billing based on instance type (vCPU and RAM), NVMe SSD storage, service plan tier, deployment model, and cloud provider costs.

There is no open source or community edition. Single-tenant and bring-your-own-cloud deployments exist as commercial arrangements, but there is no way to run it independently of the vendor.

ScyllaDB offers a 30-day developer trial on smaller instances and a 48-hour production evaluation trial with full-grade instances.

Warm queries perform comparably to in-memory search engines. Cold queries, where data is not cached, have a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents. Write p90 is around 248 ms for a 512 KB upsert because writes go straight to object storage.

ScyllaDB subscription contracts provide up to 70% or more in savings compared to on-demand hourly billing. 1-year and 3-year contract options are available.

Eventually consistent by default, with the vendor reporting that over 99.8% of queries return consistent data. Strong consistency can be requested per query at a latency cost. Large write bursts have a longer visibility delay while indexing catches up.

Unlike DynamoDB which charges per read/write unit, ScyllaDB charges based on resource usage only, potentially delivering 50% or greater cost reduction for high-throughput workloads.

Large numbers of namespaces where most are idle. The architecture makes cold data cheap to keep, which is exactly the shape of a multi-tenant product with a long tail of inactive customers.

Up to 128 billion documents and 256 TB per namespace, 500 million documents per shard, 64 MiB per document, 10,752 dense vector dimensions, roughly 10,000 writes per second per namespace and a maximum result set of 10,000.