<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>arpinum</author><text>The indexes are not immediately consistent.&lt;p&gt;Its not just that it is put in the database category, but that its champions at AWS make statements like &amp;quot;if you are utilising RDBMS you are living in the past&amp;quot;, or that &amp;quot;there are very few use cases to choose Postgres over DynamoDB&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Btw, loved your AWS book!.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DVassallo</author><text>If you treat DynamoDB as a DBMS, you’re going to be disappointed (for the reasons you mention). But if you think of it as a highly-durable immediately-consistent btree in the cloud, it’s amazing. DynamoDB is closer to Redis than MySQL. Amazon does it a disservice by putting it in the databases category.</text></item><item><author>arpinum</author><text>I bought the book, I read the book, I&amp;#x27;ve used DynamoDB for awhile. It didn&amp;#x27;t change my mind. DynamoDB makes tradeoffs in order to run at massive scale, but scale isn&amp;#x27;t a problem many people need solving when 2TB of RAM fits in a single box. Meanwhile I need to handle eventual consistency, an analytics pipeline, another database for fuzzy search, another geo lookup database, Lambda functions to do aggregations, and a pile of custom code. All while giving up tooling so readily available for the RDBMS world.&lt;p&gt;In a world where Opex is much higher than Capex DynamoDB might make sense, but for me server costs are 5% of dev costs. And even if it works from a cost perspective, how many AWS services have the console experience ruined by DynamoDB? The UI tricks you into thinking its a data table with sortable columns, but no! DynamoDB limitations strike again and you are off on a journey of endless paging. The cost savings come at the expense of the user.&lt;p&gt;DynamoDB also isn&amp;#x27;t fast. 20ms for a query isn&amp;#x27;t fast, 30ms for an insert isn&amp;#x27;t fast. Yes its amazingly consistent and faster than other systems holding 500TB, but that isn&amp;#x27;t a use case for many users.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The DynamoDB Book: Data Modeling with NoSQL and DynamoDB</title><url>https://www.dynamodbbook.com/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>avip</author><text>DynamoDb is like redis without the fun data structures, the fantastic cli and discoverability, the usefull configurable tradeoff between fast and consistent, and really much-needed features s.a listing your keys.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DVassallo</author><text>If you treat DynamoDB as a DBMS, you’re going to be disappointed (for the reasons you mention). But if you think of it as a highly-durable immediately-consistent btree in the cloud, it’s amazing. DynamoDB is closer to Redis than MySQL. Amazon does it a disservice by putting it in the databases category.</text></item><item><author>arpinum</author><text>I bought the book, I read the book, I&amp;#x27;ve used DynamoDB for awhile. It didn&amp;#x27;t change my mind. DynamoDB makes tradeoffs in order to run at massive scale, but scale isn&amp;#x27;t a problem many people need solving when 2TB of RAM fits in a single box. Meanwhile I need to handle eventual consistency, an analytics pipeline, another database for fuzzy search, another geo lookup database, Lambda functions to do aggregations, and a pile of custom code. All while giving up tooling so readily available for the RDBMS world.&lt;p&gt;In a world where Opex is much higher than Capex DynamoDB might make sense, but for me server costs are 5% of dev costs. And even if it works from a cost perspective, how many AWS services have the console experience ruined by DynamoDB? The UI tricks you into thinking its a data table with sortable columns, but no! DynamoDB limitations strike again and you are off on a journey of endless paging. The cost savings come at the expense of the user.&lt;p&gt;DynamoDB also isn&amp;#x27;t fast. 20ms for a query isn&amp;#x27;t fast, 30ms for an insert isn&amp;#x27;t fast. Yes its amazingly consistent and faster than other systems holding 500TB, but that isn&amp;#x27;t a use case for many users.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The DynamoDB Book: Data Modeling with NoSQL and DynamoDB</title><url>https://www.dynamodbbook.com/</url></story>