Amazon DynamoDB vs Liquibase: What are the differences?
What is Amazon DynamoDB? Fully managed NoSQL database service. All data items are stored on Solid State Drives (SSDs), and are replicated across 3 Availability Zones for high availability and durability. With DynamoDB, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available distributed database cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.
What is Liquibase? Source control for your database. Developers store database changes in text-based files on their local development machines and apply them to their local databases. Changelog files can be be arbitrarily nested for better management.
Amazon DynamoDB belongs to "NoSQL Database as a Service" category of the tech stack, while Liquibase can be primarily classified under "Database Tools".
Some of the features offered by Amazon DynamoDB are:
- Automated Storage Scaling – There is no limit to the amount of data you can store in a DynamoDB table, and the service automatically allocates more storage, as you store more data using the DynamoDB write APIs.
- Provisioned Throughput – When creating a table, simply specify how much request capacity you require. DynamoDB allocates dedicated resources to your table to meet your performance requirements, and automatically partitions data over a sufficient number of servers to meet your request capacity. If your throughput requirements change, simply update your table's request capacity using the AWS Management Console or the Amazon DynamoDB APIs. You are still able to achieve your prior throughput levels while scaling is underway.
- Fully Distributed, Shared Nothing Architecture – Amazon DynamoDB scales horizontally and can seamlessly scale a single table over hundreds of servers.
On the other hand, Liquibase provides the following key features:
- Supports code branching and merging
- Supports multiple developers
- Supports multiple database types
"Predictable performance and cost" is the top reason why over 53 developers like Amazon DynamoDB, while over 12 developers mention "Great database tool" as the leading cause for choosing Liquibase.
Liquibase is an open source tool with 1.79K GitHub stars and 1.09K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Liquibase's open source repository on GitHub.
According to the StackShare community, Amazon DynamoDB has a broader approval, being mentioned in 444 company stacks & 187 developers stacks; compared to Liquibase, which is listed in 15 company stacks and 12 developer stacks.
What is Amazon DynamoDB?
What is Liquibase?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Liquibase?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Flyway vs Liquibase #Migration #Backwards-compatible
We were looking for a tool to help us integrating the migration scripts as part of our Deployment. At first sight both tools look very alike, are well integrated with Spring, have a fairly frequent development activity and short release cycles.
Liquibase puts a lot of emphasis on independence with the DB, allowing you to create the scripts on formats like JSON and YML, abstracting away from SQL, which it's also supported. Since we only work with one DB type across services we wouldn't take much advantage of this feature.
Flyway on the other hand has the advantage on being actively working on the integration with PostgreSQL 11, for it's upcoming version 6. Provides a more extensive set of properties that allow us to define what's allowed on what's not on each different environment.
Instead of looking for a tool that will allow us to rollback our DB changes automatically, we decided to implement backwards-compatible DB changes, for example adding a new column instead of renaming an existing one, postponing the deletion of the deprecated column until the release has been successfully installed.
I use Amazon DynamoDB because it integrates seamlessly with other AWS SaaS solutions and if cost is the primary concern early on, then this will be a better choice when compared to AWS RDS or any other solution that requires the creation of a HA cluster of IaaS components that will cost money just for being there, the costs not being influenced primarily by usage.
For most of the stuff we use MySQL. We just use Amazon RDS. But for some stuff we use Amazon DynamoDB. We love DynamoDB. It's amazing. We store usage data in there, for example. I think we have close to seven or eight hundred million records in there and it's scaled like you don't even notice it. You never notice any performance degradation whatsoever. It's insane, and the last time I checked we were paying $150 bucks for that.
zerotoherojs.com ’s userbase, and course details are stored in DynamoDB tables.
The good thing about AWS DynamoDB is: For the amount of traffic that I have, it is free. It is highly-scalable, it is managed by Amazon, and it is pretty fast.
It is, again, one less thing to worry about (when compared to managing your own MongoDB elsewhere).
We store customer metadata in DynamoDB. We decided to use Amazon DynamoDB because it was a fully managed, highly available solution. We didn't want to operate our own SQL server and we wanted to ensure that we built CloudRepo on high availability components so that we could pass that benefit back to our customers.
몇몇 로그는 현재 AWS DynamoDB 에 기록되고 있습니다. 개선을 통해 mongodb 로 옮길 계획을 하고 있습니다. 아주 간단한 데이터를 쌓는 용도로는 나쁘지 않습니다. 다만, 쿼리가 아주 제한적입니다. 사용하기 전에 반드시 DynamoDB 의 스펙을 확인할 필요가 있습니다.