Amazon DynamoDB Reviews

We use Amazon DynamoDB because we require a non-relational database for a variety of brands.

For example, we have extensive experience with relational databases. If you use Dynamo to implement a large project, it will help you implement it faster and perform faster searches. It's good because I feel, the JSON format makes it easier to read.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the non-relational database.

If you have no prior experience with this type of non-relational database, the syntaxes, implementation, or understanding may be difficult.

I have been using Amazon DynamoDB for one year.

I am working with the latest version.

Amazon DynamoDB is quite stable.

Amazon DynamoDB is a scalable solution.

We have 160 users, in our organization.

We need to build a better solution using this database. Perhaps for future items. That was a great experience.

I would rate the technical support a four out of five.

Previously, we used CatalinaDB. It is very similar.

If you don't have any prior expertise, it may be rather complex.

We only require one person who has knowledge of databases to maintain this solution.

The deployment was done in-house.

We have seen an ROI, but the pricing is actually determined by the clients you implement.

It is a little expensive. 

It is dependent on the license you use. The license we now have is for the consumption of reading. It's around $80 each month, or more.

We tried to implement certain schemes or determine what is the best way to implement the project. We discovered that Dynamo was better.

Have database experience not just in relational databases, but also in non-relational databases, as well as AWS or configuration experience.

I would rate Amazon DynamoDB a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon DynamoDB to manage our localization data.

There aren't any issues with the product. On the contrary, it has helped us build our product from zero point to the end. In addition, I like that there's no need for external configurations or DevOps engineers.

The documentation is not good enough and can be improved. There is a lot of information, and it is old and hard to find specific information. The documentation should be updated like the Firebase in Google.

It is not easy to manage. For example, uploading a certificate and resources to our GraphQL databases is too difficult because there's no user interface. You need to jump into terminal business.

We have been using this solution for two years.

We have not used technical support before.

I just used Neo4j, which is an Amazon AWS product. Unfortunately, the price is increasing daily, and it is tricky to implement things inside AWS. It's not easy, but it's doable.

The initial setup is complex, and you need to search Google to find the correct information. I rate the initial setup a four out of ten.

We used a credit from AWS for this solution. I don't remember specific details about the cost, but it is costly. I rate the price a two out of ten. I live in Turkey, and because of the currency, it is high. I think Amazon needs to create a cluster or environment in this geographic territory so we can spend in our currency and not dollars.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. Amazon DyanamoDB has its triggers, and we would like them to simplify the process of adding a trigger without taking care of the API code. Once something has changed inside of it, it triggers a function. You can bind Lambda Function, but it's tricky because their containers are working. So, you need to know every detail about Amazon containers. So, Amazon DynamoDB creates a default and runs the function for us. So the only thing that I would be responsible for is adding our code.

I use Amazon DynamoDB for EMR automation for EMR to run. Right? We have to configure everything on time since we have configurations on Amazon DynamoDB.

We mainly use Amazon DynamoDB, like a session DB kind of solution. Also, the solution's pricing is really nice. So I use it because I don't have to pay for it throughout. It is based on the usage that I have to pay. So that is where MySQL, I had to pay 24/7. With Amazon DynamoDB, I had to pay only when I used it and the amount of data I had stored. So, it reduced my cost since it was much cheaper as compared to MySQL.

The solution's interface is the biggest challenge because if you want to access DynamoDB, you need an AWS account. So, you need to be logged in to the AWS console and can only make changes from there. So, if there's, like, any other DB, like, whether it's Redshift or any other service that shows us Spectrum, Athena, or anything they provide, we can connect it through an external client. I don't need to be logged in to the AWS console. That is one thing where it restricts me, and as of today, I've restricted its access to four people who can make the changes in the product or who can monitor or directly log in to DynamoDB and check what has been configured, what is working, what is not working. But if it was accessible, like any other DB, I could have just given them more people to read permission, and It would have been easier for me to maintain that.

As of now, I'm using it as a configuration DB and not exactly using it for transactions or storage since, for such purposes, I depend on Redshift.

I have been using Amazon DynamoDB for a year and a half.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. I've never faced any problems.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. Ideally, it is supposed to be instantaneous after we make a request, but it wasn't since I had to, like, it took me some time to increase the size of Amazon DynamoDB. However, the opinions from my other colleagues and ex-colleagues indicate that it is faster. Based on my experience, I haven't had a similar experience as my colleagues.

I don't have direct users on Amazon DynamoDB. It's applications that are accessing it now. I don't even have multiple applications such as workflow and big data. I have probably a hundred-plus workflows that are running on a daily basis.

I have never had any issues with AWS support since they have been fast and helpful, and I have them on my speed dial. So, I can just call them and reach out to them.

Previously, I was using Cloudera platform, where we were using MySQL as a configuration repository because we have been building big data pipelines and other things. So, what happens is that queries and other things that we have to fire on Redshift DB or maybe in Hudi or Kudu, all these DBs that are part of the Cloudera stack, we used to store all the queries in MySQL. We then decided to move out of Cloudera and go to EMR. For us, the easiest option was to go for MySQL, but it is not that closely integrated with AWS EMR. So it would have been an outside product being introduced or coming into our environment. Hence, we decided to go with DynamoDB, as it is an AWS product.

The solution's initial setup was simple.

I got myself involved in the process.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is a high price and ten is a low price, I rate the pricing a seven. It is not the cheapest, but it is not the costliest either.

I don't think I will be able to compare DynamoDB with other solutions in the market since there's a huge difference between any other DB that I have used and DynamoDB. I will not be in a position to give an objective view.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I work in the cloud automation domain. I used the product to store data related to automation. We had our own website. We use the product to manage automation. I also used it to store user information.

The solution is very simple to use. It is a NoSQL database. The UI is good. DynamoDB Streams is an amazing feature. If there are any changes in the DB, it will automatically trigger the workflow. The GUI is awesome.

I have used the solution in the past year.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten. It worked perfectly for us.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. We had more than 500 users.

I used MongoDB a very long time ago.

The initial setup is easy. The documentation is good. The deployment could be done within minutes.

The solution is cheaper than Cosmos DB. If an organization doesn’t have much data to store, they can use the solution for free.

It is a good investment. We were able to use it in automation. It was easy to use. Even the new joiners were able to use it effectively. All our automation was effectively stored, and we could build the dashboard out of it to present to the higher management. Anyone who wants to explore a NoSQL database in the cloud must use DynamoDB. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We are using Amazon DynamoDB for our company for multiple service database management.

One of the most valuable features of Amazon DynamoDB is it can handle unstructured or semi-structured data.

Amazon DynamoDB could improve by being more robust, having a better user interface and data management. Additionally, there is some limited functionality compared to other solutions, such as MongoDB.

In an upcoming release, it would be beneficial to show spatial data on the interface. There would is a very important metric for our company.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support has been good. However, there should be more local support for our company that is international, this would allow for better communication.

We used MongoDB previously and I found it more powerful.

The initial setup is very easy because DynamoDB is from Amazon.

We have evaluated other solutions.

I would recommend anyone looking to implement any software to understand the needs of their business and do a purpose analysis to determine if the software fits their use case. No matter how good a solution can be if it does not fit the purpose of the business it will not be helpful.

I rate Amazon DynamoDB an eight out of ten.

We have enabled a state-locking mechanism in Terraform, so we store our keys in DynamoDB. 

If the database is kept running continuously, extra costs will be incurred. This particular area needs enhancement.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the platform's scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support team is always available to help us.

Positive

I worked with MongoDB and Firebase earlier. I switched to DynamoDB because of the company and client requirements. Atlassian and Google already own the other two services. I used MongoDB for a machine learning project and Firebase for an Android-level project.

The initial setup process is easy.

I have yet to use DynamoDB for real-time data processing in my applications. However, in Terraform, we utilized it to create multiple infrastructures. Terraform has a state-locking feature, which prevents simultaneous data updates from multiple users. For example, triggering a data update one minute before you do will lock your access until my update is completed. We implemented this feature for telco data monitoring purposes.

Data modeling in DynamoDB is simple and easy to use in our cases. You have primary and secondary tables, and then you can easily model the data. Whatever you use to access the non-structural data is how you get the storage, i.e., API gateways, workflows, and microservices that need to communicate with each other. This is where the database comes into the picture.

I advise others to be thoughtful and careful when using the platform because if you keep the database running continuously, it might cost you a lot of money. 

I recommend Amazon DynamoDB to others and rate it a nine out of ten.

My use case is user data management.

It is fairly straightforward. The best part is the scalability, the response performance, and scalability part. I didn't like the API extremely well, but it was okay. 

Moreover, the system is pretty well documented, which is important. And it's observability. That's okay.

Data integrity across availability zones would be a valuable addition. 

Currently, DynamoDB provides eventual consistency across availability zones, but strong consistency would be beneficial for certain use cases.

There is room for improvement in the pricing. A more tiered pricing structure would better accommodate different usage patterns. Similar to leasing a car versus buying it outright, there should be options for those with lower or higher usage volumes.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

It is stable enough.

This is a backend system. So it can be hundreds of thousands of users because it's not like a user interface type thing.  So, it serves hundreds of thousands of real-world users.

It is a highly scalable solution. 

Never used the support. I got all the information from the documentation. 

I've worked with NoSQL databases like Redis and Amazon Keyspaces in the past.

We switched to DynamoDB because it is SaaS. We didn't have a dedicated team to maintain our database infrastructure.

Technically, Redis is better than DynamoDB is quite capable. However, it requires less maintenance compared to other NoSQL solutions.

I tried Step Functions, but it would be too pricey if I used it too much. So, I didn't stick with it. For low volume, the peanuts work. For high volume, they become expensive.

I just did play with it and then made a forecast and said no.

We just picked Amazon DynamoDB because it did the job, we wanted to do. I don't find it complicated. We use it. It's pretty straightforward.

It is SaaS from Amazon, you just use it. You don't install anything. It could you could install it if you want. Like, I didn't, but I never used that. 

It is a service from Amazon. So that's one of the benefits; you just use it. There is no maintenance required. 

For our use case usage, DynamoDB's pricing was okay. However, for high-traffic applications, the pricing structure becomes less attractive.

It might not be the best choice for high volume. DynamoDB's billing is based on usage, not a fixed subscription fee. The invoicing is done monthly, but you only pay for the resources you consume.

There are no additional charges for support or other services. You pay solely for the resources you utilize.

My role is a solution architect. So, basically, we play with what we have at hand with what's the company strategy. We're more like Jokers. We play with whatever is the context, not necessarily being like, "hey, I'm an Amazon guy. I only do Amazon." It's mostly into building the software rather than using off-the-shelf stuff. So, we just built what we needed about VPMs in other companies.

For simple, straightforward use cases, I would recommend it. And for whatever decent volume of usage means for each company, I wouldn't recommend it for a tenth of thousands of transactions per second.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The ease of operation. It's so easy to scale it up and down. And it delivers predictable performance, as promised. 

We are using DynamoDB in two projects now. One for storing large amounts of file metadata, and one for storing small amounts of session data. The fact that it is so easy to create tables and provision for known throughput saved us a lot of time, especially because we are deploying multiple environments and multiple regions. 

DynamoDB doesn't provide server-side encryption, so we had to do it manually.

Any replication to other regions requires writing code. It's not so bad, but would be better to get a solution out of the box. 

We store some protected patient information in DynamoDB, and in order to keep it HIPAA-compliant, we have to encrypt it at rest. Some services such as S3, Redshift and SQS will do the encryption on the server side, but with DynamoDB, the client application had to do the encryption before writing to the DB, and has to decrypt when reading. This means that we need to manage encryption keys: we need to store then securely and rotate them periodically, which is extra coding and complexity.

As for cross-region replication, AWS offers a way to do this using DynamoDB streams and Lambda, whereas other databases such as postgresql enable to configure replication without coding.

I have used it for one year.

We have not encountered any deployment issues. It's straightforward. 

We have not encountered any stability issues, but you should expect to get exceptions when you exceed the provisioned throughput. This is okay and it is by design. You need to handle it by retries with exponential backoff. 

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We used PostgreSQL. We switched to DynamoDB for the scalability and ease of deployment and operation. 

Initial setup was straightforward.

An in-house team implemented it.

No time wasted on provisioning databases.

Pricing depends on volume and provisioned throughput. When low, the price is extremely low. But for really large amounts of data, it can be expensive. Make sure you keep there only data you really need available fast.

We evaluated Cassandra but chose to abandon it because it was harder to configure correctly and scale.