Q: 4
You are choosing a new database backend for an existing application. The current database is running
PostgreSQL on an on-premises VM and is managed by a database administrator and operations
team. The application data is relational and has light traffic. You want to minimize costs and the
migration effort for this application. What should you do?
Options
Discussion
B . Firestore and Spanner are expensive or need app changes, pretty sure D is a trap since it's more admin effort.
Its B, but only if there’s no weird PostgreSQL extensions in use that Cloud SQL can’t support.
B , Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL is almost a drop-in with way less admin work. D feels like a trap because you still manage the VM, so not really minimizing effort. Unless I'm missing something about feature requirements?
B from exam reports, Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL is what comes up when minimizing migration and cost are main priorities. Firestore and Spanner both need more app changes or budget. Not 100 percent but I've seen this pattern.
Option D this whole managed platform upcharge annoys me. Just spin up PostgreSQL on Compute Engine, same as on-prem so migration is dead simple and you keep total control. Yeah, pretty sure that's what I'd do if worried about cost.
Not sure but B, is the best fit. I saw a similar scenario on a mock test, and Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL keeps it managed and low effort since it matches the existing tech. Firestore or Spanner would need app changes or more budget. Not 100 percent but sure enough.
B tbh
Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL (B) makes the most sense here. It's fully managed, supports PostgreSQL natively, so migration is low effort, and you avoid the overhead of managing VMs. Firestore and Spanner both mean a bigger refactor or higher cost, and running on Compute Engine is just more ops work again. Pretty sure B matches the goal of low cost and smooth migration. Agree?
Be respectful. No spam.
