Amazon Aurora Reviews

Our deployment was only used within the organization. We didn't make it available publically.

The most valuable feature is the ability to do multiple-read and single-write. These are the kinds of features that we were interested in, and Aurora takes care of that natively.

We tried to set this up ourselves in RDS and although it's more expensive, you don't have to tweak it as much. There is a lot less maintenance involves, which means there is a lot less user input.

Since leaving the previous organization, I have read that they have made Aurora faster. It was about five times quicker than before, which is quite impressive.

I know that because we were using Aurora, we didn't have to use a Redis cache, which saved us some time.

It was easier to use in terms of a technical perspective, we didn't need anyone to figure out how to write, multiple read, and different locations, with a Redis cache on top of that. 

We didn't have to configure it that way; we could have one instance. It was more usable that way.

At the time we were using it, Aurora was supposed to be five times faster, but we didn't see that.

Aurora was supposed to be five times quicker, but we didn't see any evidence. 

As I already stated, since leaving that organization, I was reading an article and noticed that they had enhanced Aurora and that it would be much quicker than before. I haven't tried it myself, but that's what I've heard.

In my experience, I didn't see the claimed speed, and when you factor in the cost, or the extra cost of Aurora compared to a normal database, it didn't justify the cost from a performance standpoint, but it did justify the cost because we didn't have to have multiple instances, Redis caches, and other things like that.

The pricing could improve. It should be reduced.

I have used Amazon Aurora for two or three years.

Amazon Aurora is a stable solution.

I would rate the stability of this solution a ten out of ten.

Amazon Aurora is a scalable product. It is easy to scale.

You don't have to monitor or manage it because it's totally handled by AWS and will scale as your data grows.

We have approximately 600 users in our organization.

We have never contacted or used technical support from Amazon.

We are familiar with AWS. We used EKS to store our keys. We used RDS, Aurora, and Load Balancer. We have used Lambda functions, as well as the container.

The initial setup was easy.

It is quite expensive.

I would rate the pricing a two out of five.

I was responsible for introducing Salesforce to my previous company. 

Salesforce is a CRM tool and is something I am fairly familiar with. Power Apps is something my current employer, evaluating. 

We are not looking; we are a Microsoft partner, and we are interested in how Power Apps may be connected from a consulting standpoint. We are also developing an in-house low-code platform.

We are not getting any traction on that, and wonder if we can compare this to items that are already on the market, should we continue development on this or offer something like Power Apps, OutSystems, or something else to our clients?

I would recommend it for enterprises or corporations, but not for small-scale use.

I would recommend it in situations when stability and speed are important.

For large data sets, not for medium or small data sets or volumes of data If you have a lot of data, you should probably go with Aurora. It is not something I would recommend to anybody else. It is not worth the price.

In my previous company, we had a partnership with Amazon.

I would rate Amazon Aurora a seven out of ten.

I use Aurora for data storage.

It works well for our needs. Amazon Aurora has supported our high-volume transactional workload.

We leverage existing AWS services, and that works fine for us.

I like that it is compatible with MySQL and the fact that it's maintained by Amazon.

Aurora's compatibility with MySQL or PostgreSQL benefited our database management. The migration from on-premise MySQL to Aurora was similar, so we didn't need to change our source code.

We rely on the fact that it's maintained by Amazon, so we don't need to install updates or patches or handle security ourselves. We don't use any specific features for availability.

There is room for improvement in pricing. 

I would like to see more AI-related features in future releases. 

I have been using it for three years. I use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. There are around a hundred end users using this. 

It is used daily. So, my company has daily usage. 

We use Postgres and MySQL for on-premise deployment. 

Since we're using all AWS tech, it made sense to leverage their entire product suite.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, with ten being easy. 

The deployment took us a few minutes.

The deployment was done in-house. One person was enough. 

It doesn't require any maintenance. 

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

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

Amazon Aurora is a relation database built on top of a Postgre or MySQL engine.

These days, we are mostly developing small microservices, and we consider Aurora if we want to have a scalable database. It can have a higher number of read replicas. In those instances, we recommend Aurora. With one or two projects, we have used Aurora.

The solution is deployed on their managed service on the cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that the maintainability is offloaded to the service provider. I don't have to maintain a database or do any administrative tasks, which comes in handy. The solution also comes with disaster recovery feasibility, where I can switch to another zone. The data between these tools and zones is replicated easily. Another valuable feature is the replicas. I don't have to worry about synchronizing the data between multiple instances, so it takes care of all these maintenance activities by itself.

Their serverless feature is also quite good.

It is a bit costly. The features are quite good, and I wouldn't say it requires any technical improvements. But from a cost perspective, some clients wouldn't go for Aurora because of that. 

Right now, I think it has only two flavors: MySQL and Postgre. I would like Aurora to be integrated with the Oracle engine because most clients have Oracle databases, especially the CRM ones. I have seen that they're mostly into Oracle databases. Of course, we can migrate the data, but if they have a similar engine or an Oracle engine, that would also be helpful.

I have worked with Aurora within the last few months.

It's stable. I've never had any downtimes.

The solution is highly scalable.

Technical support is good, but we have to be on the business profile. Mostly, they come up with the business subscription or the enterprise subscription. So, we usually get to raise calls and they are very quick in assisting. That's all fine.

But the caveat comes when you are not on a business profile. For example, when I'm working with the pre-sales team, I don't have a business subscription. I'm just a free trial user where I'm trying to evaluate a product. In that case, you don't get their support.

The free version is fine, but there is limited support for people who are doing the POCs or evaluating a particular product before engagement itself. Having more technical support in that case could be helpful. At least, if they're providing a $200 free credit, maybe they could also provide 10 queries. For instance, if I have 10 challenges which I'm not able to solve by myself with their documentation, or five cases that I could raise with them and they would provide service, even if I'm not paying the subscription, that would help.

Setup is very straightforward.

We don't have any maintenance guy at all because the maintenance is offloaded to Amazon. I don't have a DB guy within my team who is doing maintenance. The developer who does the coding for the application development simply takes care of provisioning the Aurora database as well.

The price could be lower compared to its competitors.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

For Postgre and MySQL, it is all quite good. However, it is a bit costlier. Given the features they have provided, it's okay, but for the smaller clients, they feel it is a bit too costly.

I am using Amazon Aurora as a relational database. Our applications for our business users are usually relatively internal application types which are mostly small, which makes data storage and retrieval quick and easy, especially when developing business applications where time is of the essence. Therefore, it is preferable to have a technology that allows developers to work quickly and seamlessly, without any complicated setup or extra steps.

When we use NoSQL databases the data comes at a high speed.

The most valuable feature of Amazon Aurora is SQL standardization, it doesn't have its own syntax which is good. It has a lot of hands-off self-management type of activities, such as log rolling and auto-scaling.

There is improvement needed to have more developer focus. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a stand-alone solution outside of Amazon. Amazon has a tendency to favor developing web-based clients, which may not always provide the fastest or most responsive solution as desired.

I have used Amazon Aurora within 12 months.

Amazon Aurora is stable, I have not had an issue with the solution.

The solution is highly scalable, this is the main reason we use it.

There is not any support for the solution. It is self-documenting and self-aware. They provide you with the tool to fix it yourself whenever there is an issue.

The initial setup of Amazon Aurora is one of the better experiences that I have had.

My advice to others who want to use this solution should go through the AWS foundation courses.

I rate Amazon Aurora an eight out of ten.

We had challenges in loading huge volumes of data quickly, with reports growing beyond a certain number of millions of rows. Despite indexing and applying filters, we experienced significant latency loading the related reports. That's why we looked into using Aurora. We monitored it for about six months and tweaked the database-related parameters, but we still didn't see much improvement. So we reverted to RDS.

We had better control over the parameters that we could tweak in terms of intermediate storage and better indexing capabilities.

It would have been helpful if they had provided some benchmarking numbers. If they had given those, we would have been able to make a more informed decision.

I have been using Amazon Aurora for six months. 

It is a stable solution for a specific business case.

It is a scalable solution. We had around 35 users.

My IT person has been involved in the setup, but they said it was easy.

It is an expensive solution. It is one of the reasons we shifted to RDS. 

I would check you to check your use cases and the pain points you have with the current database and then recommend you make a benchmarking comparison. 

In case of any specific requirements, we can evaluate if Amazon Aurora is a good fit. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because our objective was not fulfilled.