[wertgklrgh]

DynamoDB is pretty cool tho. You need to know a few limitations and design your data in a certain way but in turn you get like literally unlimited scaling and will never have to worry about overnight success bringing your services down.

No wonder AWS has moved most of it's DB usage over to DynamoDB.

For me its Postgre -> DynamoDB if working on an MVP and then maturing or if the access patterns are well known to begin with then DynamoDB.

One particular thing i love about DynamoDB is the 1 click global tables. I've yet to see anything similarly easy in the SQL world for going global with a database. (Like one AZ in US and one AZ in EU so that every customer gets a low latency)

Also, most of the time if Dynamo is used correctly it costs way less than an RDS instance running Postgre.

[tabtab]

> never have to worry about overnight success bringing your services down.

But the chances of becoming a viral sensation are very small compared to the probability of longer-term maintenance headaches you'll likely have under NoSql. NoSql is thus similar to meteor insurance. I suspect egos are not making realistic estimates.

[wertgklrgh]

DynamoDB has way less maintenance compared to MySQL/Postgre running on even a managed service