There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by lwansbrough on Friday July 07, 2017 @09:35PM (#14723548)

We store 100-1000 GB of data in each wide table on our untrendy on-prem SQL server boxes. 10GB is peanuts. In fact, I propose (given the limitations suggested by the author) that DynamoDB may have NO practical uses worth exploring. If NoSQL is about scale, and it can't scale, what's it good for?

I can understand having to optimize your key space, but in this case it necessitates extreme premature optimization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by manojlds on Saturday July 08, 2017 @01:40AM (#14724254)

From my understanding, node is virtual nodes. This article on Cassandra should give some info - https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/2.1/cassandra/archite...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by ryanworl on Friday July 07, 2017 @09:38PM (#14723560)

Each shard is 10GB. The unit of scale is a shard. You can have as many shards as you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by lwansbrough on Friday July 07, 2017 @09:47PM (#14723592)

It's one shard per node though, right? So you're talking about SERIOUS cost when you want to store _actual_ big data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by ryanworl on Friday July 07, 2017 @09:50PM (#14723603)

You don't pay per node. In fact, the concept of a node is not exposed at all. Each shard is technically on three nodes for high availability. You pay for provisioned capacity and data storage per GB.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There are very few suitable use cases for DynamoDB by pmohan6 on Friday July 07, 2017 @11:30PM (#14723919)

DynamoDB is a multi-tenant service. There is no dedicated node for you. Each shard is replicated across 3 nodes and those nodes contain replicas of other shards/tables.

[ Parent | on HN ]