Shared compute - more cost effective
Having an individual resource allocation per db is very inefficient and not cost effective. It's because of this that we're putting all customer data in the same database instead of creating a database per customer. I understand that Neon can make more money with the current setup, but it makes more sense for customers to have a more efficient option. Vercel is doing something somewhat similar with fluid compute.
For example, if I have 4 servers running and each one is using 0.2 CPU, I will be billed 4 * 0.25 = 1 CPU. With shared compute, I would only be billed 4 * 0.8 = 1 CPU. In a more extreme example where I'm using hundreds across customers and/or agents, if I have 200 servers running at 0.02, the I will be billed 200 * 0.25 = 50 CPU instead of 200 * 0.02 = 4 CPU. This means that while Neon starts out as a very affordable option compared to traditional hosting, when using Neon feature to the fullest, it can become very expensive at scale.
For example, if I have 4 servers running and each one is using 0.2 CPU, I will be billed 4 * 0.25 = 1 CPU. With shared compute, I would only be billed 4 * 0.8 = 1 CPU. In a more extreme example where I'm using hundreds across customers and/or agents, if I have 200 servers running at 0.02, the I will be billed 200 * 0.25 = 50 CPU instead of 200 * 0.02 = 4 CPU. This means that while Neon starts out as a very affordable option compared to traditional hosting, when using Neon feature to the fullest, it can become very expensive at scale.
