Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB Reviews

Cosmos DB has multiple use cases. For instance, we recently developed a custom application for a customer in India. We used Cosmos DB to store data fetched from the initial front end to reduce access times to the application, which is significant for improving user experience. 

For example, when creating a virtual machine through our custom portal, it is essential to check whether a VM with the same name exists in the same or a different subscription. 

Additionally, we needed to enforce naming conventions and limitations on the number of VMs that can be created within the same network. These conditional parameters were managed using Cosmos DB, allowing the initial provisioning process to validate data and configurations instantly. 

This enables us to inform the user right away if there is a duplication or if the creation adheres to predefined rules, offering suggestions based on the UI. This demonstrates the real-time application and benefits of Cosmos DB.

We use Cosmos DB for its key-value storage capabilities. For structured data, we always use SQL Database.

The low-latency data access provided by Cosmos DB improved application performance.

Application performance improvement depends on what kind of optimization you're looking for. Do you want to improve latency or efficiency? Performance tuning depends on that specific goal.

Here's an example: A customer with an application running in an internal system noticed their outbound data flow and charges increasing every month. They were exporting a lot of data for users in Excel format, which was heavy.

I suggested they export the data in CSV format instead. It's lightweight and users can still open it in Excel. This optimizes data usage and costs without compromising user experience.

Cosmos DB now supports unstructured data. It's a key-value store, so we can send data without worrying about strict structure, data types, and so on. Since it's unstructured, it's lighter than a structured database.

We use Cosmos DB for its key-value storage capabilities, while SQL Database is used for structured data.

There is room for improvement in terms of stability. 

I have been using it for a year. 

In my experience, Cosmos DB is definitely stable. But, for any service or application, I wouldn't give it a perfect score. There's always room for improvement. A perfect score would mean no room for improvement. So, I always consider some buffer for improvement.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten.

Since it's a managed service, Azure backend handles scalability. From a user's perspective, we don't need to worry about scalability.

Right now I'm dedicated to customers of one of India's largest certificate authorities, Reliance Jio. They have a lot of customers and two dedicated Azure data centers in India. I focus on those two data centers, and I see at least 10 to 15 customers heavily using Cosmos DB there.

From the user's perspective, it's a managed database service, so all scalability is managed in the backend. Users shouldn't worry about scalability itself, but they might need to consider if paid region support is needed or if other regions are available. Otherwise, scalability shouldn't be a concern for them.

But if you're configuring Cosmos DB in a non-Azure solution, you'd have to manage scalability yourself. In that case, you'd have to be more conscious about it.

We have dedicated technical support in India for each Azure service, including Cosmos DB. Since I provide the framework, design, and initial implementation, I'm involved in most calls to ensure everything is deployed as designed. 

But for any issues or troubleshooting, there's dedicated support that gets involved and fixes them. I also stay engaged with the product team.

The product team is very proactive.

Positive

I predominantly work on Microsoft SQL Database, among others. Sometimes, we use Cosmos DB for specific adaptations or APIs within Azure.

We've also assisted some customers in migrating from MongoDB to Cosmos DB.

If you're familiar with it, it's not complex at all. But for someone new, it can be a little tricky.

Cosmos DB itself is a cloud-based solution. However, I'm currently working primarily with a hybrid solution: Azure Stack HCI with software-defined networking for the environment.

We don't directly deploy Cosmos DB itself; it's a service within Azure. We use our DevOps pipeline to deploy the entire environment, which includes the application, database, environment (including the virtual network), and any connected service endpoints. 

Everything gets incorporated into the provisioning source or the DevOps pipeline and then deployed from there. It's a pretty streamlined process for us.

If the cost is affordable and you're looking for a managed service for unstructured data, I would definitely recommend using Cosmos DB from Azure. It also has seamless migration options from MongoDB, MySQL, and others. 

So, a managed service is the best way to go if the cost is affordable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use different Azure services in the development of our solutions. Some of the services we use are Azure Cognitive Services, ADB2C, and SignalR.

For most of the solutions, we use a mixture of Azure SQL Database and Cosmos DB. We use Cosmos DB when the data size is huge, and we need to scale.

Currently, only two people in my organization are working on this solution: one developer and myself. In the future, I think once the system gets deployed, we will have thousands of users. 

Cosmos DB solves certain problems that relational databases cannot handle. It's a multimodal NoSQL database, and it's very scalable. One of the nice features is the ability to auto-scale, plus Cosmos DB's API is easy to use. 

I hope they improve the service. Before last year, improvements on Cosmos DB were very slow. I didn't see many changes in the functionality.

I have been using this solution for four years.

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

It's very scalable and fast.

I had developer support with Microsoft Azure. I faced a problem a few years ago, and they helped me solve it.

Positive

It's very easy to set up Cosmos DB. First, you decide what type of API to use, like SQL, Graph, etc., or if you want support for MongoDB or Cassandra APIs. I usually use SQL API. Once you choose the type of API, you create an account and a database. Then you create containers, and you can easily write queries.

I believe there will be a return on investment because using cloud solutions will remove all capital expenses. Cosmos DB's auto-scaling options minimize the cost. Choosing "pay as you go" services cuts costs especially when users are not using the system.

I hope Microsoft lowers the cost further.

We evaluated MongoDB and Cassandra, 

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

The APIs are improving and are easy to use. It is easy to set up a new database, and the auto scalability and support for different models are good features.

We mostly use it for NoSQL use cases. We use it for web applications, mobile applications, and social applications in the financial sector.

It is deployed on-premises and on the cloud, and we are using its latest version but not the one in the public review.

Its wide support to the ecosystem is valuable. We can use this database with a lot of use cases, and that's one of the reasons why we prefer it. We have a lot of vendors, databases, and use cases, and wherever possible, we are trying to standardize databases. It is also secure.

At this stage, we would like more enterprise support. We use MongoDB a lot, and we're trying to get rid of MongoDB. So, I would like to see more features in the Cosmos DB API for MongoDB space.

I have been using this solution for almost two years.

It is stable. It has 99.999% availability, and it is backed by SLAs.

We have thousands of users.

We use the cloud version and the on-prem version. We have our on-prem database engineering team. For the cloud, we are okay with their support.

We use MongoDB a lot, and we're trying to get rid of MongoDB.

It is easy to install. I tried it in a testing environment, and it was easy. Database experts should be able to do it easily.

For the cloud, we don't pay for the license, but for the on-prem versions, we do pay.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB a nine out of 10.

We mainly use it for products that are based on graph concepts. We are using it for mobile applications and real-time analytics.

We have scaled it from 400 users to more than 1000 clients. We were able to scale efficiently during COVID-19.

The graphical representation of data is the most valuable feature of the solution. We did not face any glitches.

The support tickets are not cheap.

I have been using the solution since 2017.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

We had around 300,000 users. They were distributed globally. I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The support team is not competent. We end up with the wrong agents sometimes. Sometimes, we must buy support tickets. It is not a good idea to have tickets that cost a lot.

Negative

It is a cloud-only solution.

We have also used MongoDB and SQL Server.

We had some challenges at the beginning because our team did not know how to optimize the tool. They made some expensive applications. However, we were able to cut it down by 95%. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the product to input data that doesn't require structuring. 

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB's most valuable feature is latency. 

The tool's pricing is expensive. 

I have been using the product since November 2021. 

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is stable. 

The product is scalable. My company has eight users. 

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB's tech support is okay. 

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB's deployment is straightforward. 

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB's licensing costs are monthly. 

I rate the tool a nine out of ten. 

I work for a retail company that uses Cosmos DB internally for access management. You have a graph with a hierarchal model that goes from owner to manager to assistant manager to employee, etc., and you provide access based on this hierarchy. Our workshop manager uses Cosmos DB to track requests for access and who needs to approve them. 

Employees who want to access specific resources will submit a request, and the application owners will approve it. Within the applications, there are often multiple levels of access. So the owner of those processes or files must authorize access. We have nearly 500 users. The security and access management teams mostly use Cosmos DB. 

The company is considering a switch, but that might take many years. Many others have switched and will continue to switch to other solutions. However, after you've invested a couple of years into it, it becomes more challenging because you need to rewrite many things. 

I don't think Cosmos DB has improved our organization. People are using it, but I'm not sure it's the best solution. For one, it's costly. Also, there are other issues with it. You cannot get all the records simultaneously. You can only get it in chunks of 1,500 maximum.

Cosmos DB is a graph database. I could see the advantages when we implemented it because it didn't have much competition. MongoDB was doing it, but it wasn't a popular solution for graphs, structures, and hierarchy. The only competitor was Neo4j.

I have been using Cosmos DB for nearly a year.

I rate Azure Cosmos DB eight out of 10 for stability if you allocate the necessary resource units. It is based on the concept of a resource unit. There are three settings: auto, manual, and another one I can't remember. You can manually set a limit on what goes to the resource unit during a specified time. or it will automatically send and continuously increase. 

This can create some instability. For example, if I limit my resources to 30,000 RUs, I expect to consume, but if the load is higher, it will fail and continue to fail. I will get an error that says, "Too many requests."

If you set it to "auto," you'll have to pay for it. You can adjust the limit, but it will not automatically do it. It requires someone who can think in terms of RUs, not the other databases we usually use. The person should always think in terms of resource units because you're paying for each resource unit. It isn't simply writing queries and pulling the details from the database. That is a steep learning curve. Many assume Cosmos DB is like any other NoSQL or graph DB. 

Cosmos DB is scalable, but there are some limitations on the amount of data you can hold in this partition. I think the maximum is 50 GB. That is a lot of data, so it is scalable, but there is a limit. It isn't infinite. Only 99 partitions are allowed with 50 GB each, then the maximum amount of data is under 5,000 GB.

However, it isn't simple because you need to define each record. You have to decide which partition the records should go to. Suppose I have 100 GB of similar records and want to put them in one partition. That isn't possible. 

I rate Azure support nine out of 10. They respond quickly and will help you manage costs. However, they mainly give you an overview of the issue, so they'll never have an in-depth idea of what you're doing. They aren't the owners of our product, so they don't know much about it, but they can ask you generally: What are you doing? Are you doing too many updates? How can we reduce the cost? 

They usually make common suggestions, but so few technical people understand Cosmos DB, and they will be costly. 

Positive

I have used multiple NoSQL databases. The most common is Neo4j, but people also use MongoDB, which is a little easier. You have optimization and all those features there.

I rate Cosmos DB nine out of 10 for ease of setup. The setup is easy, but backing Cosmos DB takes a little more work. It isn't difficult, but you have to raise a request to Azure support. It isn't in your control. The documentation is good enough that most application developers can handle it by following the steps in the documents.

We did it in-house. Two developers should be more than enough. One person could do it alone, but it's always good to have an extra person to verify that your actions are correct. After deployment, it doesn't require any maintenance. When you want to make a copy, you submit a request to the support team and within 24 hours. 

We haven't seen a return. You could benefit from this, but few engineers know how to use it correctly, so that's a problem. It depends on the company. I believe only large organizations can afford it. 

You also should be ready to invest in developers because it has a considerable learning curve. In other databases, you have something called "data cutover." You can change the whole concept of your data to make it more efficient. That is not possible in Cosmos DB. It's too big and will take years to change, whereas that might take you only two or three days in other databases.

For example, let's say you are paying a hypothetical amount for a mistake you made. We'll say it's $1,000. After a couple of years, you realize that you will only need to pay $200 after fixing that mistake, but it will require too many changes in multiple places to fix that error. You might need to discard your old solutions entirely, and it takes years to rewrite everything. Cosmos DB isn't going to reduce the number of people. Conversely, it's going to increase problems and create more confusion.

I rate Cosmos DB one out of 10 for affordability. It was expensive. We pay almost $1,000 daily to use it. It doesn't work traditionally — it works on resource units — so it's costly. It's a graph DB, which has advantages and disadvantages. Neo4j and MongoDB do the same thing, so it depends on your environment and costs.

There are also issues with how you design it. You cannot create the traditional way like you would in other databases or graph databases. Typically, you would pay a fixed subscription yearly. With Cosmos DB, you pay monthly based on the source unit. That's what is expensive. 

It's harder to find designers and developers based on that. Many solution architects will set something up using the traditional way of thinking. Once you start using it expensively, it's challenging to change that. You end up with millions of records, so it's impossible to change all of them. 

We are considering changing from Cosmos DB to MongoDB.

I rate Azure Cosmos DB six out of 10. I wouldn't recommend it. I suggest using other products like Neo4j and MongoDB. If you must use it, you should hire an expert who understands how to design the tables, indexing, and partition keys. The setup is effortless, but how will you write the code? It should be predetermined.

The company is using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB for business intelligence information, specifically for demand management.

What I like about Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is that it's easy to do data ingestion and use the data in different applications. If you talk about business intelligence such as the Power BI tool, it's easy to connect because both are Microsoft products. With Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB, it's easy to connect and do data ingestion.

At the moment, because I'm still new in terms of using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB, I don't have any feedback regarding areas for improvement in the product. So far, it has met all the expectations and needs of my company.

It would be nice to have more options to ingest the data, for example, more file options or more search options. Currently, you can use JSON, but if there were other file types you can use for data ingestion, that would be nice. This is the additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB.

I've been using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB for the past six months.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is a stable product.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is a scalable product.

We have a partnership with Microsoft, so the response time of the technical support team for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is really good at the moment.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB was easy to set up.

I've been using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB, a cloud DB solution. It's deployed in a cloud environment, on a public cloud with security for ourselves.

My company is a partner of Microsoft and also a reseller.

My advice to people looking into implementing Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is that it would be good for them to use, specifically if they are looking for a NoSQL database to ingest the data and do data discovery using the data in a BI tool. It's easy to ingest the data and work with the data in Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB and understand that, because it is not a SQL database, which means it's not as structured. You can add data, and then do a data discovery, and use it the best way for you. I would recommend Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB.

My rating for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is eight out of ten.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB can be used for various purposes. The query language used for Cosmos DB is very similar to SQL, which gives it an advantage. It's a globally distributed multi-model database service, meaning it supports multiple data models, including documents, key-value pairs, graphs, and time series data models.

It's highly scalable and supports consistency, security, and multiple security options, such as REST and transit encryption. It also provides automatic support for these options. These are some top-level benefits of using Cosmos DB, making it a highly versatile and useful tool.

The multi-model database is the most valuable feature. 

One thing that concerns me is the cost, especially for smaller workloads. Cosmos DB is a little more expensive than other database services, particularly if you have tight-traffic models. However, it does have a few advantages, such as being a multi-model database. The biggest problem is the learning curve and other database services like RDS. 

Additionally, advanced analytics capabilities like real-time analytics and machine learning are not embedded in Cosmos DB. Vendor lock-in is a big concern. Cosmos DB is a proprietary database service offered by Microsoft that might not be compatible with other databases. 

I have been using this solution for three years. I am using the latest version.

From a stability perspective, it's a pretty robust solution designed to offer high availability and fault tolerance. It provides multiple levels of redundancy and automatic failover to ensure data availability and reliability. 

It is a scalable solution and has built-in backup and recovery capabilities. We developed it for one of our clients with around 20-25 users.

When compared to other cloud platforms like GCP and AWS, I think Microsoft needs to work on its tech support.

There is some learning curve associated with this software. It becomes relatively easy to implement if you have an expert to work with. 

The deployment process and maintenance depend on the size of the product and what you're trying to migrate. Generally, one cloud solution architect and one big data developer with Azure experience should be sufficient.

We could see an ROI. The whole idea of migrating to the cloud was for a better ROI, and we can see that now that the customer has moved to the cloud.

As your data grows, the licensing cost can be expensive.

If your existing infrastructure already uses Microsoft services or is more of a Microsoft-dependent solution, it's best to be on Microsoft Azure cloud. This is because it integrates very well, and there is a smooth integration with other Microsoft products that are already running on our products. 

You can also leverage some of your existing licenses, saving you a lot of costs when you move to the cloud. That's one solution I would suggest for anyone who is moving from on-premise to the cloud. 

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