Amazon AWS CloudSearch Reviews

It was an e-commerce website, which I think that it is self-explanatory how much you need to use photos how much you care about how long is to load a photo.

• Storage of photos and files which can be accessed anyplace, anytime, extremely quickly.
• More information (files) can be stored safely

CDN service, which reduces latency when accessing our web application it is a great earn in performance.

I think that currently it works very well. I mentioned the period of propagation on CDN servers. Sometimes, we update some photos or files and we don't see the update instantly. We need to wait for sometime, which is quite boring because we may be setting up a marketing campaign which is related to the product's photo and we need to wait to start.

Sometimes, with time to the propagation of the CDN.

Never any scalability issues.

Satisfactory.

The change was mainly because of the CDN servers.

It was quite easy because we have good knowledge, but the documentation of the product is excellent.

I would say that it is an investment.

Think about making good use of the tool, meaning: Look at your project or requirements and restructure thinking of the use of CloudSearch.

I mainly use AWS CloudSearch for cluster-based AWS, EC2 services, cloud-front services, and Amazon Kubernetes services.

AWS CloudSearch's best features are good performance under high CPU and memory use, and ease of deployment and scaling.

AWS CloudSearch's documentation isn't very clear. Also, the on-premise version of the solution is less stable than the cloud version. In the next release, I'd like AWS CloudSearch to include a Python-based library improvement to communicate with other services and support for more languages.

I've been using AWS CloudSearch for about two years.

The cloud version of AWS CloudSearch is the most stable.

AWS CloudSearch is easy to scale.

Amazon's technical support needs to improve as they only solve about half our problems. 

Negative

AWS CloudSearch is easy to deploy.

We used an in-house team.

Our license costs around $4,000 per month.

We're switching to Microsoft Azure because customers in Europe prefer it due to their GDPR laws. I would rate AWS CloudSearch three out of ten.

We were able to build the core search functionality using this product.

• Document indexing
• Text-based search API
• Geospatial searches

Latlon data type only supports single value per document. All other types support multiple values. We faced issues with this because we had scenarios where, for each document, we needed to store multiple latlon values for different geographical locations.

No issues with stability.

Index cleanup is sometimes painful. No easy way to clean indexes or a bulk of documents. Full indexing or regeneration of entire indexes sometimes gets stuck. In one instance, we had to delete the entire index and re-create it.

This was the first implementation, we did not switch from any other product.

No setup required, as it is on cloud.

I was not involved with pricing and licensing, I was only involved in implementation.

I would suggest looking at Elasticsearch. I am currently using it and I feel it is more flexible and easy to use.

The best feature is its scalability in that Cloud is always on the fly. You can scale your requirements on the fly. Cloud also has other features but scalability comes first. This is one of the best features.

I think AWS is doing a good job. I don't think it needs much improvement. Security is a concern but they're working on it. I am not saying there is no security, but maybe they can bring in more controls.

I've been using AWS CloudSearch for three months.

The stability of the product is good.

As I mentioned, its scalability is its best feature.

We had a team of 15 - 20 people using it.

In terms of support, it's good - it's a market leader. Most of the issues are documented, so you really don't need support except for out of the ordinary stuff.

The initial setup is simple.

I'd definitely recommend Amazon AWS CloudSearch. On a scale of one to ten I'd rate it an eight.