Databases don’t usually cause sudden AWS bill spikes.
They’re worse than that.
They just… sit there.
Running 24/7.
Quietly expensive.
For a long time, your only real option to reduce database costs was Reserved Instances. They worked, but they were rigid, hard to manage, and easy to get wrong.
AWS Database Savings Plans are an attempt to fix that.
And honestly?
They’re a step in the right direction.
What are AWS Database Savings Plans?
At AWS re:Invent this year, AWS announced Database Savings Plans - a new pricing model designed to make database spend cheaper and simpler across a range of services.
At a high level, Database Savings Plans are spend-based commitments.
You commit to spending a fixed dollar amount per hour for 1 year, and AWS gives you discounted pricing on eligible database usage in return.
The discount automatically applies to your usage - no instance-level locking, no region pinning, no guessing exact instance families upfront.
If you’ve used Compute Savings Plans before, the mental model is very similar - just scoped specifically to databases.
What databases are covered?
Database Savings Plans apply across a wide range of AWS database services, including:
- Amazon RDS
- Amazon Aurora (including Serverless v2)
- DynamoDB
- Amazon DocumentDB
- Amazon Neptune
- Amazon Keyspaces
- Amazon Timestream
- AWS DMS
That cross-service coverage is the big win here.
You’re not committing to how you run databases - just that you will.
How much can you actually save?
AWS says up to ~35%, and that number is real - but mostly for serverless or modern database workloads.
For traditional provisioned RDS or Aurora instances, savings are usually more modest, but still meaningful.
The key thing is predictability.
Instead of asking:
“Which instance should I reserve for the next year?”
You’re asking:
“How much database spend do we consistently have every hour?”
That’s a much safer question.
What happens if usage changes?
- This is where Database Savings Plans shine.
- You can change instance families.
- Move between regions
- Shift from RDS to Aurora
- Adopt serverless
The discount still applies as long as the usage qualifies and you’re within your hourly commitment.
If you exceed the commitment, the extra usage is billed at on-demand rates.
If you underuse it, you’re still paying for the commitment.
So yes - forecasting still matters.
Just less painfully than before.
The catch (because there’s always one)
Not everything is covered.
Older instance generations and some niche setups may still require Reserved Instances. In reality, many teams will end up with a hybrid approach:
Database Savings Plans for modern workloads
RIs for legacy or unsupported systems
That’s not a bad thing - just something to plan for.
Where most teams go wrong
The mistake isn’t choosing the wrong discount model.
It’s committing too aggressively.
Teams see potential savings and lock in a number based on peak usage instead of baseline usage. A few architecture changes later, and suddenly the commitment becomes a liability.
The smarter approach is conservative:
Cover what you’re confident will run no matter what. Let the rest stay flexible.
This is where having proper visibility into historical usage really matters - otherwise, you’re just guessing with bigger numbers.
So… are Database Savings Plans worth it?
If your AWS environment is static and predictable, Reserved Instances can still work fine.
But if your databases evolve — and most modern systems do - Database Savings Plans are easier to manage, harder to mess up, and much better aligned with how cloud actually works.
They won’t magically fix bad architecture or forgotten databases.
But they do reduce the penalty for change.
And that’s a pretty solid upgrade.
And that's pretty much it. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Top comments (0)