This inefficiency occurs when a protected resource (such as a virtual machine, database, or file share) is decommissioned without explicitly stopping backup protection. In these cases, Azure Backup continues to retain existing recovery points in the vault until the retention policy expires. Although the source resource no longer exists, backup storage remains allocated and billable, resulting in unnecessary ongoing costs.
This pattern is common when infrastructure is deleted outside of a formal decommissioning process or when backup ownership is unclear.
This inefficiency occurs when an Azure Savings Plan is scoped too narrowly relative to where eligible compute usage actually runs. When usage is spread across multiple subscriptions or fluctuates significantly (for example, development and test workloads that are frequently stopped and started), a narrowly scoped Savings Plan may not consistently find enough eligible usage to consume the full commitment. As a result, part of the committed hourly spend goes unused while other eligible workloads outside the scope continue to incur on-demand charges.
Azure supports broader scoping options—such as Management Group or Shared scope—that allow the commitment to be applied across a larger pool of eligible compute. Selecting an overly restrictive scope can therefore directly drive underutilization, even when sufficient total usage exists across the tenant.
Teams often start custom-model deployments with large architectures, full-precision weights, or older model versions carried over from training environments. When these models transition to Bedrock’s managed inference environment, the compute footprint (especially GPU class) becomes a major cost driver. Common inefficiencies include: * Deploying outdated custom models despite newer, more efficient variants being available, * Running full-size models for tasks that could be served by distilled or quantized versions, * Using accelerators overpowered for the workload’s latency requirements, or * Relying on default model artifacts instead of optimizing for inference. Because Bedrock Custom Models bill continuously for the backing compute, even small inefficiencies in model design or versioning translate into substantial ongoing cost.
Generative workloads that produce long outputs—such as detailed summaries, document rewrites, or multi-paragraph chat completions—require extended model runtime.
Embedding-based retrieval enables semantic matching even when keywords differ. But many Databricks workloads—catalog lookups, metadata search, deterministic classification, or fixed-rule routing—do not require semantic understanding. When embeddings are used anyway, teams incur DBU cost for embedding generation, additional storage for vector columns or indexes, and more expensive similarity-search compute. This often stems from defaulting to a RAG approach rather than evaluating whether a simpler retrieval mechanism would perform equally well.
Embeddings enable semantic retrieval by capturing the meaning of text, while keyword search returns results based on exact or lexical matches. Many Azure workloads—FAQ search, routing, deterministic classification, or structured lookups—achieve the same or better accuracy using simple keyword or metadata filtering. When embeddings are used for these uncomplicated tasks, organizations pay for token-based embedding generation, vector storage, and compute-heavy similarity search without receiving meaningful quality improvements. This inefficiency often occurs when RAG is used automatically rather than intentionally.
Embeddings enable semantic similarity search by representing text as high-dimensional vectors. Keyword search, however, returns results based on lexical matches and is often sufficient for simple retrieval tasks such as FAQ matching, deterministic filtering, metadata lookup, or rule-based routing. When embeddings are used for these low-complexity scenarios, organizations pay for compute to generate embeddings, storage for vector columns, and compute-heavy cosine similarity searches — without improving accuracy or user experience. In Snowflake, this can also increase warehouse load and query runtime.
Embeddings enable semantic search by converting text into vectors that capture meaning. Keyword or metadata search performs exact or simple lexical matches. Many workloads—FAQ lookup, helpdesk routing, short product lookups, or rule-based filtering—do not benefit from semantic search. When embeddings are used anyway, organizations pay for embedding generation, vector storage, and similarity search without gaining accuracy or relevance improvements. This often happens when teams adopt RAG “by default” for problems that do not require semantic understanding.
Embeddings allow semantic search — they map text into vectors so the system can find content with similar meaning, even if the keywords don’t match. Keyword or metadata search, by contrast, looks for exact terms or simple filters. Many workloads (FAQ lookups, short product searches, rule-based routing) do not need semantic understanding and perform just as well with basic keyword logic. When teams use embeddings for these simple tasks, they pay for embedding generation, vector storage, and similarity search without gaining meaningful accuracy or functionality.
Verbose logging is useful during development, but many teams forget to disable it before deploying to production. Generative AI workloads often include long prompts, large multi-paragraph outputs, embedding vectors, and structured metadata. When these full payloads are logged on high-throughput production endpoints, Cloud Logging costs can quickly exceed the cost of the model inference itself. This inefficiency commonly arises when development-phase logging settings carry into production environments without review.
