External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
ScyllaDB is a very seamless product within C++ or something. So, it's faster and all that stuff. Even if it is all good, there is more need for marketing on their website than on the original thing.
Now, if you are a big company, ScyllaDB is a good, robust product. It's a terabyte/petabyte kind of product. But your cost would be one-third or even less with ClickHouse, and it would be smoother and lighter.
ScyllaDB is very fast, and I can use it for so many things. But what happened is we pushed a lot of data, and even though it was fast, things started getting weird here and there.
At one point, we could understand why accepting this when you restart something or fix something and it starts working. You feel very smart, like, " Oh yeah, we did it right." But then again, these are the problems we shouldn't be having in the first place.
But it is fast and very distributed. So, let's say you're Google, and you need your server in 500 places, and they all should talk with each other in close proximity. And you deploy ScyllaDB and have a dedicated DevOps version full-time. It's going to work. So, those things are there in ScyllaDB. But, again, it requires a full-time job.
It seems we have better options available. So probably don't go for ScyllaDB. The reason is, first, it's very high. It's not as straightforward as, like, Postgres or ClickHouse to set up. It requires a complex setup.
The other problem is what they call. For example, they will say that for up to a million operations, you experience this. But the problem is if they have nine servers, then your one operation is counted as nine operations, not one. So, even though you have one write, they count it as nine. It's like it's just not false premises. You can always host it yourself, but then it's way more complex.
The benefits are not substantially more than those of other databases. It's not that it's slow or anything. It's good enough and all. But it's just that ClickHouse or other databases are simpler and faster and probably provide more features. So, I kind of burn out from the database, and that's why I would keep it small.
I tried it for two and a half months.
ScyllaDB claims it's very stable under a massive load, and I don't doubt it. We didn't have the database go down due to data load. We had problems with infrastructure showing racks from an infrastructure point of view. I don't blame ScyllaDB for not being stable, but in my experience, it wasn't very smooth when it came to infrastructure. If your infrastructure breaks, you have problems.
Maybe if you use the cloud, you don't have to deal with it, but we didn't use the cloud. We tried to set it up ourselves and faced a lot of problems. Maybe I missed something, but we did it a couple of times, and each time there was a new issue.
At one company, only five people used it for about two to four months. Our team consisted of two or three people who deployed and tested it.
We did talk to the support team for help. And funnily enough, we talked with US support. A lot of marketing people for ScyllaDB sit in Europe. So we talked with people in London, India, and America. They know their stuff. They are good people. They know their product, everything is good.
What they don't know is if you ask any person, "Why should I use ScyllaDB over Clickhouse?" they will probably not give you a good answer. So, that kind of stuff.
The other thing is that people are happy. But then again, if you want support on point, they charge some money. And I think we paid for two, three hours, and then it was extra.
Basically, a lot of companies have a mode for ScyllaDB in the market because ClickHouse is a product of its own, and a lot of companies are already using something called Cassandra. ScyllaDB is bigger and better than Cassandra. It uses less memory and they claim it's five to ten times faster.
It is not easy to setup.
I would rate my experience with the setup a five out of ten, with ten being easy.
It is an expensive tool compared to its competitor.
If you already use Cassandra, you can probably consider using ScyllaDB; otherwise, just avoid it.
Using ScyllaDB isn't that hard. Setting it up on the infrastructure side is the same as Kafka. Using Kafka is a piece of cake, but managing and setting it up is difficult. So, using ScyllaDB is not hard, but there are lots of unknown unknowns that you only discover after you get the bill or have users, and then you need DevOps help.
Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten.
We use the solution to present information for a very big system. The dashboard requires real-time information.
ScyllaDB provides access to information directly using SQL language.
The interface was very easy. The most important things are access to information stored as a time series and the very high speed at which we can query the information.
I have been using ScyllaDB for five months.
I didn't find any exceptions causing problems. We accessed the data and presented the information very quickly.
The scalability would be great.
The documentation and web page are very easy to read.
Positive
The deployment process is moderately complex. One person is enough for it.
We used some of your site's available documentation to deploy ScyllaDB. Following those steps was very straightforward, and we could access the information quickly. The process was very clear and user-friendly.
Due to the speed and availability of the database, customers are willing to pay whatever it takes to access this information. The price is not too high.
It would require about four or five people to handle the maintenance tasks.
The integration with the ecosystem depends on the specific area of use, as numerous applications are complex. Overall, you can access information within this database using comprehensive API and easily integrate it into larger solutions.
I recommend the database to anyone who is using a time storage database.
The database is easy to use, fast, and accessible for applications because the API is straightforward.
Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.