Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB Reviews

In my role, I use Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB fairly extensively across various platforms. At ASOS, we utilize it for order processing to record incoming orders and for commercial integration platforms. Overall, we have numerous use cases.

Overall, Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is easy to use.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB has provided benefits compared to SQL databases, particularly in terms of availability.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB has helped to improve our total cost of ownership.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB offers a relatively easy learning curve due to its limited programming service area compared to SQL Server. This streamlined functionality allows users to quickly grasp the SQL query language.

The autoscale feature is the most useful for us.

There should be parity between the various APIs. I often work with the Mongo API, and features for it sometimes lag substantially behind the core API, such as the Analytical Store feature. Additionally, I am waiting for the full fidelity change feed that would surface all changes, including deletes to documents.

While Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is generally easy to use, it has some limitations. Certain areas are more restrictive, and we are awaiting features that will simplify development. For example, currently under development, the full fidelity change feed will expose all document changes, enabling tasks like synchronizing collections while accounting for deletions. This is challenging because the existing change feed doesn't provide information about deleted documents.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB for around seven years.

Cosmos DB demonstrates good stability and great reliability, with technical issues arising approximately once per year.

While Cosmos DB offers good latency and availability, careful consideration must be given to selecting appropriate consistency levels.

The scalability is excellent, and as long as the data can be partitioned, the scalability is nearly infinite.

Cosmos DB's ability to scale workloads is a significant advantage, as evidenced by our successful management of multiple terabytes of data without encountering any issues.

The quality of customer service and support varies. We always get an answer eventually, but the speed of resolution depends on the reason for the support ticket. If there is a bug in the product, we have to wait for it to be fixed.

Positive

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is straightforward. Even someone with no experience can easily deploy the solution.

The deployment can be completed by one person on the same day.

The deployment can be done entirely in-house. Whether we are doing it manually in the portal or deploying it through Terraform, it is straightforward. We do not require help from an integrator or consultant, although there are considerations about partitioning collections when creating resources.

The pricing for Cosmos DB has improved, particularly with the new pricing for Autoscale. Previously, we were charged according to the busiest partition across all regions, but now, each partition is only charged for what it uses. This change has substantially reduced our costs.

When evaluating new projects, we determine whether data storage is best suited for a relational database, such as Azure SQL Database, or a non-relational database like Cosmos DB.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB eight out of ten.

Understanding some of the subtleties of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB can take time, and some individuals at ASOS still find concepts like partitioning unclear. However, getting started with Cosmos DB and developing functional applications is quick and can be achieved in a short timeframe.

We require minimal maintenance to validate that we've configured, for example, the correct indexing policies as required by our queries.

New users should make sure they understand partitioning because once it's selected, it is difficult to change it. Otherwise, you would need to migrate everything over to another collection.

I worked on an entity data client project that handled multiple users from digital products, like a Stream player similar to Netflix. It is called Play Plus, with a user base of seven million and a website that attracts eighty-two million unique users per month. We store the data from these users in Cosmos DB to ensure a fast connection between the user profile and the advertising system.

I believe the best features of Cosmos DB are its global distribution capabilities. It supports multi-region replication with low latency in read and write operations and automatically adjusts throughput dynamically based on workloads. It ensures low latencies, offers consistency levels, and provides a serverless mode. Also, for this scenario, the solution was fast due to its serverless nature, allowing it to handle eighty-two million user profiles with low latency and swift connectivity with the advertising system.

I think Cosmos DB enhanced the benefits of NoSQL databases, offering query flexibility, partition management, and backup and restore options. These aspects are crucial, and perhaps improving the complexity of partition management would be a beneficial area for Microsoft to focus on.

I have been using Cosmos DB since 2023 when I executed a project for clients.

I do not experience problems with Cosmos DB, nor does the team have any issues with it.

I have used both Cosmos and AWS DynamoDB. Compared to Cassandra and Cosmos DB, I think Cosmos is a superior solution because it is serverless. There is no need to worry about installation, updates, or security, as Microsoft handles all this. Our focus is solely on development.

The setup was easy, very easy.

By using Cosmos DB, I estimate at least a twenty percent saving because it allows us to develop rapidly.

I truly recommend Cosmos DB because it is a serverless product. Our responsibility is just to develop and adhere to Microsoft's instructions to achieve optimal performance from Cosmos DB. It is an excellent tool. The product rating is nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Cosmos DB is unstructured data. We utilize it to spin up databases quickly.

We previously used on-premises databases. Switching to the cloud significantly improved scalability, flexibility, and uptime. It also addressed our uptime issues and greatly benefited our organization. We've never had issues searching through any amount of data; it's more than capable of searching large amounts of data. 

The connectors, such as the MongoDB connector and the integration with SQL, are incredibly valuable.

There's a little bit of a learning curve because I was new to Azure. But once you learn the tool, it's pretty straightforward.

I have been using the solution for about three years now.

We haven't noticed any significant issues with latency, but we don't have many applications. The availability is excellent, and we have multiple availability zones, so nothing goes down. 

The solution can scale very well both up and down, although we predominantly work with smaller databases. We haven't needed extensive scalability yet, but it seems very capable.

We previously used MongoDB. The shift to Cosmos made sense as we wanted to move to the cloud and benefit from its MongoDB API connection.

The setup was straightforward. Team members could start using the tool within a few hours, although not at an expert level.

As far as I know, it's cheaper compared to running on-prem, although comparing costs exactly can be challenging.

I personally don't deal much with budgets, but our financial analyst hasn't raised any complaints. The pricing aligns well with budget expectations.

I would rate the product an eight or nine out of ten. We are very happy with it as it runs smoothly right out of the box.

I am building an extension app for DocuSign. One of the ways for me to demonstrate this is by using a third-party database. I read and write data from Cosmos DB using DocuSign tools.

We wanted to use Azure function apps and Cosmos DB because Cosmos is serverless and non-relational, so it's easy to set up and simple to scale up and down. Overall, it was a good fit. 

I like the way you can create and delete records. You pass a JSON, and then it creates a record. It is easy to use because you don't need to know much about Cosmos DB or have prior experience. 

Cosmos DB does a pretty good job of searching. I've never had trouble as long as I search for a unique key or value I'm looking for. If my query is right, it returns the value.

Once you create a database, it calls the container, and then items show up. A better description and more guidance would help because the first time I created it, I didn't understand that a container is similar to a table in SQL. 

I have been using it for six months.

My use case is like a proof of concept, so the data set is not extremely large, but I know from reading about it that it can scale up well. It should do a good job on large amounts of data. 

The initial setup was simple the first time I used Cosmos DB. It took just a few hours for my small technical team to get used to how Cosmos DB works.

The pricing model has aligned with our expectations. In Azure, setting it as consumption-based or serverless keeps the cost low, but we had instances where automation increased the cost significantly. It was more of a configuration problem, where options to keep it minimal are still present.

We wanted to go with Azure function apps and Cosmos DB to keep it serverless and non-relational, making it easy to set up, scale up, and down.

I rate the product as eight out of ten.

I like to describe it as a programmer's database. .NET developers, in particular, can design and work with the data easily because it's schema-free. Unlike traditional databases, which are considered rigid with their rules, developers really love Cosmos DB because of its schema-free nature and the freedom it offers.

Cosmos is widely used for web applications. You can also use it for inventory management and IoT solutions... there are a ton of different applications.

It's very easy to integrate Azure Cosmos DB with other Azure services. For example, generating a Power BI report from data in Cosmos is just a few clicks. It's also simple to stream IoT or sensor data into Cosmos.

When it comes to supporting IoT or real-time analytics, the main advantage is speed. Cosmos DB doesn't rely on traditional disks and database structures like a relational database. It uses JSON, which is similar to XML, and that makes it incredibly fast.

The way it was designed is most valuable for global distribution. Unlike old-school SQL Server that was intended for a single data center, Cosmos was built from the ground up for global availability. 

Features like geo-clustering and mirroring were not afterthoughts. If you have a database in Chicago, you can right-click and easily create a failover group in Japan. That works well for global companies with offices across continents; it minimizes latency.

Cosmos's multi-model support made databases more highly available. 

The downside is that Cosmos is new and fairly complex. There's a limited pool of talent who are really good at working with it.

Because of that, I've been approached by recruiters quite a bit; they see my Cosmos DB certification on LinkedIn. It's hard to find people to work on Cosmos projects. 

Sometimes, a really smart developer will design and build a Cosmos implementation and then move on, leaving the company struggling to find someone to work with it and maintain it.

Interestingly, if you need to restore a Cosmos DB database, you have to put in a ticket with Microsoft – they're the only ones who can do that.

I've worked with Cosmos on and off for about three years.

For Cosmos DB, their technical support is very good. They are the experts in that product.

Overall, the customer service and support are excellent. 

Positive

I did a couple days of training on DynamoDB, which is Amazon's comparable product to Cosmos DB.

They're actually quite similar, both being multi-model databases. Relational databases are good for structured data, but once you get into semi-structured and unstructured data, they just don't perform well. 

That's where DynamoDB and Cosmos DB excel – storing, indexing, and quickly working with that less-structured data.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. You can set up a Cosmos DB in a day, even configuring things like availability zones around the world. 

The harder part is on the developer side – designing the collections (similar to tables) and how the data will flow in.

I've set up a few Cosmos DB instances, and it's about a half-hour tops.

One person can handle the deployment. I'd typically set it up alongside other Azure components like a VM. You choose your settings, networking details, etc., basically walk through a wizard, hit deploy, and it's up within half an hour.

There are some configuration options for database administration on the customer's side. You'll need to go in and enable things like automatic indexing with checkboxes.

With heavy use, like a large-scale IoT implementation, you could easily hit a quarter of a million dollars a month in Azure charges if Cosmos DB is a big part of it.

I would recommend using it, but with a caveat – it's a good fit for companies with deep pockets.

It's powerful and amazing, but the costs can add up.

I'd give it an eight out of ten. It's super powerful and solves real problems with global distribution. I hesitate to give it a perfect ten because it's still new, and good training resources are harder to find. Even the most recent books on Cosmos DB are several years old, which is ancient in IT terms.

I had to work hard to get a certification in it. 

We use Cosmos DB to store the concept of data and how it is entered by the user.

Cosmos database has helped improve search result quality, allowing more results. We implemented the ASR service to gather data from users. Cosmos database does an excellent job of searching through large amounts of data. The speed is impressive, and integrating our power-up database with Kafka was an improvement.

The most valuable features of the Cosmos DB include its ease of use and optimization and its seamless integration with code. We do not use the built-in vector database capability, but its interoperability with Azure AI services is noteworthy.

One area of improvement for Cosmos database is the auto-scaling of RUs during high loads. It would be beneficial if the database could automatically scale resources rather than requiring manual adjustments.

I have been using Cosmos DB for two years.

To scale workloads effectively with Cosmos database, we must manually increase the RUs. During the initial implementation phases, we encountered issues with scaling, but it appears to have been resolved.

We replaced our SQL database with Cosmos and Kafka, resulting in an improvement in operational performance.

The initial setup was straightforward and did not take much time.

I rate Azure Cosmos DB eight out of 10. The system itself is effective for our current use cases.

In our setup, we rely on Azure Cosmos DB primarily for cloud-native applications that demand global scalability. We use it for connecting web apps and implementing search functionalities.

Cosmos DB's low-latency data access has greatly improved our application performance. It is a game-changer, allowing us to move workloads from on-premises to the cloud, thanks to the reduced latency, and freeing us from the constraints of on-premises environments.

The most valuable features for our organization with Azure Cosmos DB are multi-master capability for applications, automatic failover ensuring high availability, scalability, support for multiple data models, and low-latency access. Additionally, the seamless integration with microservices running in containers adds another layer of efficiency to our operations.

In terms of improvement, slight enhancements in integration interfaces, expanded dashboard functionalities, and broader use-case support would be beneficial.

I would rate the scalability of Cosmos DB as a nine out of ten.

The technical support is quite good.

It is a relatively affordable solution.

For those considering Cosmos DB, my advice is to embrace its versatility. Cosmos DB can handle various data models like documents, wide columns, and graphs seamlessly. You can consolidate your needs into one database, Cosmos, eliminating the need for multiple databases. It simplifies management and offers a comprehensive solution for a wide range of use cases.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB as an eight out of ten.

We use Cosmos DB as our entire storage database solution for our application. We don't use any other relational database. We have a file that we use for configuration, but we use Cosmos for user data.

We have about 100,000 users a week who visit our website. We have plans to increase usage to four times what we're using now.

The biggest benefit it offers is scalability. It's easier to work with concurrency and updating data. We don't have to worry about locking cables or the speed of reads or query searches because we've structured our data around a key value. Everything is super fast, and it basically removes any bottleneck related to databases in our application, and we just use reference keys. One document will reference the key of another document that we need, so we don't have to rely on searching.

Partitioning is helpful because we use it heavily. Partitions are really nice because they help with the collection of data. Not only is it fast to recall the data, but when you partition it, you can pull the partition and then query the exact document from that partition. It helps with data recall.

There's another feature that we just started implementing, which is partial updates of documents. It doesn't require the entire object to update, but updating documents across applications becomes difficult because you have to pull the entire document, which means you have to support the entire model to update it. So, that application has to know about every single parameter that may or may not have been added because if it reads and writes the document again, you'll lose data elements.

An improvement would be a more robust functionality around updating elements on a document, or some type of procedural updates that don't require pulling the entire document. Otherwise, you have to keep all of your apps up to date with the models, and that can be cumbersome and lead to errors. Usually, you don't always remember, and then it leads to some type of bug, but you won't realize why. You'll lose some value because you don't realize that you have some application that doesn't run often. You forget that it writes to that same document and you didn't update the model.

It would be nice to have some type of functionality for less common updating applications and to not always have to worry about keeping that model up to date.

There's some integration with Entity Framework and it's nice, but it's not robust and it would be good to have something like that when it comes to pulling data.

Occasionally, you have to query the database for values because we save our appointments and we don't have an index on appointments. We don't have a manual lookup for appointments, so we don't save it in another file. We have to run a query to get appointments that occur on a specific day and the downside of that is you have to use strings just to hardcode the string values. It would be nice to more easily integrate with a tool like Entity Framework, and I know that they do, but it's not an easy process. It would be nice to have an easier way without relying on text to query the database.

I have used Cosmos DB for a year and a half.

There have been some configuration issues, but we haven't hit any thresholds or roadblocks when it comes to throughput. That was one of the reasons that we leaned toward it and not a relational database, especially at scale. We haven't run into any issues when it comes to that.

We look at community answers because we can usually get answers faster than messaging support directly. We don't usually resort to a customer service type of support unless it's a fundamental issue. 

When we had an outage in the middle of the night, the turnaround time was within a few hours.

Previously, I used Couchbase. I've also used Neptune, which is a different type of database. I've also used SQL.

We chose Cosmo DB because it's more tightly integrated. One of the reasons we chose this version of a non-relational database was because of the speed of development. We also chose Cosmos DB over other types of NoSQL databases because it's so tightly integrated with Azure, it's easily managed through deployment templates, and it's very easy to scale. If you're using Azure already, it's a very easy tool to pick up and integrate into your applications.

Cosmos is pretty straightforward. There is more complexity, so you just have to be mindful. We had a small issue with making sure that the disaster recovery settings were set up correctly. We found out that there was some type of outage in the middle of the night, but we noticed that the failover didn't run properly. It was because of some configuration that should have been caught earlier, and it wasn't obvious that we got it wrong.

There are some infrastructure teams that manage some underlying resources that are related to Cosmos and some of the configurations, but for our specific implementation, we have three developers at most. We usually only need two people for maintaining and managing the solution.

We deployed the solution in the cloud, but we configured everything in-house.

We have seen ROI. There's no active management when it comes to that. When I've worked on relational databases, there's a lot that goes on, like indexing, upgrades, and store procedures. I've managed relational databases for years while working on an application and worked with people who managed them. Cosmos is nearly maintenance-free and very easy to use.

The pricing is really good. I would rate the cost as 9 out of 10. There may be some more complicated use cases that are more expensive. When we've budgeted for our resources, it's one of the more expensive ones, but it's still not very expensive per month.

I would rate this solution as 8 out of 10. 

When it comes to ease of use, spinning up and working at scale, our specific use case, and the scalability that it offers, the solution is definitely very good.

My advice is to use containers as single objects and create manual indexing to improve efficiency.