Bug P2
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
di...@doit.com
+1
jo...@google.com
+1
jo...@google.com
confirmed. this is the the way things have been working ever since the introduction of slots -- it's not really related to editions. it's related to slots vs on demand.
va...@zendesk.com
Slots used to be available only as prepaid feature where project was getting only what was paid for, however editions are different, especially if they are setup with 0 base line and no long-term commitments.
If a user runs a misaligned query that times out in 6 hours amount of resources that BQ spends identical in both price models On-Demand and Editions but in case of On-Demand project is not charged back but for Edition price model project will be facing multi-hundred or thousand bill. In my opinion that is a huge disadvantage of edition price models.
If a user runs a misaligned query that times out in 6 hours amount of resources that BQ spends identical in both price models On-Demand and Editions but in case of On-Demand project is not charged back but for Edition price model project will be facing multi-hundred or thousand bill. In my opinion that is a huge disadvantage of edition price models.
sa...@google.com
Hello Vasilii,
An issue has been raised internally to update public documentation. Updates will be communicated in this public issue.
Thank you.
Description
BigQuery Editions are effectively another form of pay-as-you-go price model similar to On-Demand and it is logical to expect similar behavior in both cases. However if a BigQuery job fails in a project using On-Demand price model project is not billed but on any of the Edition project got charged which makes it inconsistent.
What you expected to happen:
Slot consumed by a BigQuery job that has failed on any of the BQ editions are not billed on the project.