Disclosure. Dynoxide is maintained by the author of this board. Its score is produced by the same automated tests as every other engine, derived from the conformance suite's published results, and isn't adjusted by hand.
Other builds
Same project, built for a different place to run. Each is measured separately, because what a build implements can differ from what the project does.
How to run it
Every way Dynoxide is distributed, each linking to the project's own documentation for it. These are the project's claims, not the suite's measurements.
Needs: none - a native binary
Per-region divergence
The headline is 2 regions, measured against 2 of 33 observed regions, and scored in ap-east-2. Real DynamoDB doesn't behave identically in every region, so a target can match some regions more closely than others. Each figure below is divergence in those regions, best first. eu-west-2 is marked as the historical baseline, and a region that couldn't be resolved this sweep is flagged rather than counted as a disagreement.
Fully supports
Operation areas this target implements completely - every test passes, nothing skipped. Areas it only partly gets wrong are in “Where it falls short” below; the ones it only partly attempts are in “What it doesn’t attempt”.
- batchGetItem tier 1
- batchWriteItem tier 1
- createTable tier 1
- deleteItem tier 1
- deleteTable tier 1
- describeTable tier 1
- getItem tier 1
- listTables tier 1
- putItem tier 1
- query tier 1
- scan tier 1
- updateItem tier 1
- updateTable tier 1
- partiql tier 2
- streams tier 2
- tags tier 2
- transactions tier 2
- ttl tier 2
- updateTable tier 2
- vectorSearch tier 2
- legacy-api tier 3
- limits tier 3
- validation-ordering tier 3
Divergence and coverage over time
Both are plotted because neither reads correctly alone. Divergence falls when a target stops attempting an operation it used to get wrong, so a fall in the first plot is only an improvement if the second one holds.
Divergence
Coverage
By operation
Every operation this target implements, with how much of it diverges and how much of it it covers, on the same two axes as the figures above. The counts are fails over the operation's whole size. full, partial, failing, unsupported. The matrix compares operations across targets.
Tier 1 - Core
- batchGetItem 0/15 0.0% 100.0% batchGetItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (15 pass)
- batchWriteItem 0/18 0.0% 100.0% batchWriteItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (18 pass)
- createTable 0/30 0.0% 100.0% createTable: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (30 pass)
- deleteItem 0/13 0.0% 100.0% deleteItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (13 pass)
- deleteTable 0/3 0.0% 100.0% deleteTable: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (3 pass)
- describeTable 0/4 0.0% 100.0% describeTable: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (4 pass)
- getItem 0/39 0.0% 100.0% getItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (39 pass)
- listTables 0/5 0.0% 100.0% listTables: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (5 pass)
- putItem 0/129 0.0% 100.0% putItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (129 pass)
- query 0/92 0.0% 100.0% query: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (92 pass)
- scan 0/56 0.0% 100.0% scan: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (56 pass)
- updateItem 0/70 0.0% 100.0% updateItem: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (70 pass)
- updateTable 0/15 0.0% 100.0% updateTable: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (15 pass)
Tier 2 - Complete
- account 0/2 · 2 skip n/a 0.0% account: unsupported, implements none of it (2 skip)
- backups 0/5 · 5 skip n/a 0.0% backups: unsupported, implements none of it (5 skip)
- contributorInsights 0/2 · 2 skip n/a 0.0% contributorInsights: unsupported, implements none of it (2 skip)
- export 0/2 · 2 skip n/a 0.0% export: unsupported, implements none of it (2 skip)
- kinesis 0/1 · 1 skip n/a 0.0% kinesis: unsupported, implements none of it (1 skip)
- partiql 0/76 0.0% 100.0% partiql: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (76 pass)
- resourcePolicy 0/2 · 2 skip n/a 0.0% resourcePolicy: unsupported, implements none of it (2 skip)
- streams 0/18 0.0% 100.0% streams: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (18 pass)
- tags 0/8 0.0% 100.0% tags: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (8 pass)
- transactions 0/62 0.0% 100.0% transactions: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (62 pass)
- ttl 0/7 0.0% 100.0% ttl: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (7 pass)
- updateTable 0/14 0.0% 100.0% updateTable: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (14 pass)
- vectorSearch 0/28 0.0% 100.0% vectorSearch: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (28 pass)
Tier 3 - Strict
- error-messages 1/174 0.6% 100.0% error-messages: partially supported, diverges on 0.6% of it, covers 100.0% (173 pass, 1 fail)
- legacy-api 0/42 0.0% 100.0% legacy-api: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (42 pass)
- limits 0/93 0.0% 100.0% limits: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (93 pass)
- validation-ordering 0/31 0.0% 100.0% validation-ordering: supported, diverges on 0.0% of it, covers 100.0% (31 pass)
Where it falls short
Operations Dynoxide implements and answers differently from real DynamoDB, biggest gap first. This is what its divergence figure counts. Open one for the exact tests, or see the conformance suite.
-
error-messages Tier 3 1 diverging
View these tests in the suite →- BatchGetItem - exact error messages empty RequestItems: full required-parameter error source:26
What it doesn't attempt
Operations Dynoxide declines rather than gets wrong, so none of this counts towards its divergence. It is what the gap in its 98.7% coverage is made of. Each test here skipped itself because the target's own feature probe said the operation isn't implemented, which is often a deliberate choice rather than a defect.
-
backups Tier 2 none of it 5 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Continuous backups - PITR reports PITR DISABLED by default
- Continuous backups - PITR enabling PITR transitions PointInTimeRecoveryStatus to ENABLED
- On-demand backups - lifecycle and restore CreateBackup → DescribeBackup → ListBackups → DeleteBackup
- On-demand backups - lifecycle and restore RestoreTableFromBackup initiates a restore into a new table
- On-demand backups - lifecycle and restore DescribeBackup on a deleted backup throws BackupNotFoundException
-
account Tier 2 none of it 2 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Account reads - DescribeLimits, DescribeEndpoints DescribeLimits returns positive account and table capacity limits
- Account reads - DescribeLimits, DescribeEndpoints DescribeEndpoints returns at least one endpoint with an address
-
contributorInsights Tier 2 none of it 2 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Contributor insights - enable/describe/list reports DISABLED by default
- Contributor insights - enable/describe/list enabling transitions the status and lists the table
-
export Tier 2 none of it 2 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Export and import - S3 ExportTableToPointInTime initiates an export and reports it
- Export and import - S3 ImportTable ingests S3 data into a new table
-
resourcePolicy Tier 2 none of it 2 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Resource policies - Put/Get/Delete GetResourcePolicy on a table with no policy throws PolicyNotFoundException
- Resource policies - Put/Get/Delete Put then Get round-trips the policy, and Delete removes it
-
kinesis Tier 2 none of it 1 not attempted
View these tests in the suite →- Kinesis streaming destination enables a streaming destination and reports it via Describe
Run history
Every percentage here is divergence, per tier and over the whole suite, so lower is better in each column. Coverage is the exception it is named as.
| Run | Gradecurrent criteria | Divergence | Movement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade A | 0.0% | diverged 0.9 percentage points less | |
| Grade A | 0.9% | unchanged | |
|
Suite on AWS corrected the vector index readiness documentation, prompted by a write-up of the earlier guidance that drew on the suite's measurements. The ACTIVE-plus-backfilling state the old advice was built around, and which no index ever occupies, is gone from the three pages that described it. The wait now reads "Backfilling is not true" rather than "is false", so a check written literally from it fires on both creation paths instead of neither. The tutorial no longer says a search during backfill can return incomplete results. Two things the suite had measured but nobody had written down are documented as well: that DescribeTable reporting ACTIVE leads the dedicated search endpoint, and that the readiness check depending on neither status field is a real search in a retry loop. That contract is now pinned rather than described. The UpdateTable walk asserts that Backfilling true is only ever reported alongside CREATING, that an ACTIVE index reports no Backfilling field at all, and that the base table goes ACTIVE while the index is still building, which is what makes a table waiter the wrong gate for a search. The first search that succeeds has to carry every seeded item, since the backfill window answers with an error rather than a partial view. On the CreateTable path a new test runs the documented check the way an application would, and every rejection before the first served response has to be the retryable ValidationException rather than a not-found. The suite's own search wait now absorbs those two rejections and rethrows every other answer, so a fixture waiting on an index that is ACTIVE but not yet served no longer fails on the lag it was waiting out. Two files asserting exact rejection messages wait for a served search rather than for ACTIVE: "does not have the specified index" is also what a freshly ACTIVE index says, and it would otherwise stand in for whichever message the case asked for. The tutorial's other new claim, that a table cannot be deleted while a vector index is being created, has a test of its own. Only the UpdateTable path can ask it. Across three runs an index created with its table reached ACTIVE in the same 250ms poll as the table, so the table is never ACTIVE with the index still building there, and a DeleteTable during creation is refused for the table's own status rather than with the documented index wording. Adding an index to a live table opens that window about thirty seconds in. The test cancels the index afterwards instead of waiting out the backfill, which a still-creating vector index turns out to accept the way a backfilling GSI does, so it costs a minute rather than seventeen. A release now dispatches its measurement as the results bot rather than with
the workflow's own token. GitHub raises no |
Grade A | 0.9% | unchanged |
|
Suite on The board now measures the most recent release tag rather than Every board now says what produced it. A board is graded against the suite manifest and split registry as they stood at the ref it measured. Region health is the exception and is read live, so a region dropped since the tag still counts against today's cohorts. That is the one input allowed to move under a board without a new measurement, and the board carries a health date beside its measurement date to say so. Releases are cut by one workflow dispatch: it bumps the version, dates this section, installs against the bumped tree, tags, and opens a draft release, then starts the measurement. The draft publishes itself when the board carrying that version lands, which takes about three hours. eu-west-2 has crossed to the validation framework's generic constraint message
for The matching validation-ordering row is retired. Both wordings refuse an empty
A probe absent from the baseline is no longer reported as drift. Adding a probe to the capture script leaves every older baseline without it, and a scheduled red then named the new probe as the thing that had moved. The weekly cross-region capture now includes eu-west-2, so the drift lens reads its baseline and the candidate regions from one capture taken at one moment rather than comparing today's candidates against an older baseline file. A scheduled red also keeps the eu-west-2 capture its drift verdict was read from, which was previously discarded with the runner. |
Grade A | 0.9% | unchanged |
| Grade A | 0.9% | unchanged | |
|
Suite on ExtendDB's SQLite backend joins the run, built from the same release as the PostgreSQL one and held to the same TLS, SigV4 and IAM posture, so the storage engine is the only thing that differs between them. A project's other builds now sit behind a disclosure on its row. Every build is measured in full and has a row of its own with its own figures; the disclosure starts closed only when every build under it reads the same grade, divergence and coverage as the row above, and only when each of them was measured in that run: a carried row on either side opens it, and so does a run the suite declined to score. It is read from each run, so a build can start closed on one and open on the next. The README table has no disclosure to offer, so it lists every build outright. Every target in the data endpoints gains two fields.
The |
Grade A | 0.9% | unchanged |
| Grade A | 0.9% | diverged 0.9 percentage points more | |
|
Suite on Read this first if you consume the JSON. The data endpoints go from schema 2 to schema 4 in one step. Schema 3 was never published on its own, so everything on 2 crosses both steps at once. Schema 3 breaks in four ways:
Schema 4 is additive on top: each target carries its grade and the full criteria
in A score is two figures, never oneDivergence is the share of the whole suite a target answers differently from real DynamoDB. Coverage is the share it implements at all. They are reported apart and never summed, because a declined operation is discoverable in minutes and a wrong one in production. No target was re-run for the change and no pass, fail or skip moved: what changed is how the same counts are expressed. Everything else that was a percentage followed the headline down - tier figures, the per-region drilldown, the per-operation table, and the colour bands, which inverted with them. A target's history is two plots rather than one, because divergence falls when a target stops attempting something it used to get wrong, so a divergence line alone can render a withdrawal as an improvement. Every target wears a letterDivergence sets it - A under 5%, B under 15%, C under 25%, D under 35%, F beyond
These are grading criteria version 1, dated in the methodology, which carries the derivation. Where a threshold sits is a hand-picked input to a published letter, and moving one regrades targets whose results never changed, so any change to a band, the coverage weight or the A+ gate bumps the version. The suite grows from 998 tests to 1054Vector search (#125). 42 tests over the deterministic surface DynamoDB
shipped in August 2026: the index lifecycle on both creation paths, request
validation on each plane, rejection wording, write-path validation, search on a
fixture where the nearest neighbour is unambiguous, the two new capacity shapes,
and PartiQL's inability to reach a vector index. Every pinned value was
characterised against real DynamoDB in eu-west-2 before it was asserted. Two
findings worth naming: searching during a backfill is an error, which settles
which side of a contradiction in AWS's own documentation is right - three
developer-guide pages say the call fails, the tutorial page says results can be
incomplete - and an overwrite leaving the stored vector unchanged reports no
vector write capacity at all, because index replication is delta-based. Both
sides are captured in Index write costs (#124). 14 tests. The suite's only per-index capacity assertion was on a Query, so the write side - the half you get billed extra for - went unmeasured. A sub-1KB write costs one unit for the table and one for each index it lands in, and LSI units fold into the total exactly as GSI units do. Moving an item to a new GSI key costs two on that index, a delete and an insert; touching a projected attribute costs one; touching a non-projected attribute costs nothing, and the response carries no arm for that index rather than a zero. An overwrite that leaves the item unchanged reports no index cost whatsoever. The index exclusions create no indexed table (#116). Corrections
|
Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.0% | diverged 5.2 percentage points less | |
| Grade B | 5.2% | diverged 1.5 percentage points more | |
|
Suite on Grew to 982 tests, up 28, all characterised against real DynamoDB across the per-region ground truth 2.0.0 put in place. New coverage is PartiQL's RETURNING clause; the GSI lifecycle also joins the ground truth, and the sweep's drift classifier gains a converged case.
|
Grade A | 3.7% | diverged 2.9 percentage points more |
| Grade A | 0.7% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.7% | unchanged | |
|
Suite on Per-region scoring lands complete. 2.0.0-pre put the scoring logic in place, comparing each target against every region's recorded answer, but the evidence half was never wired: no test recorded what a target actually answered and the classifier never read one, so a fail could not be credited to a region the target matched and the score could only ever subtract. 2.0.0 closes that loop, and the seed split runs its whole lifecycle in the same release. What changed:
|
Grade A | 0.7% | diverged 0.1 percentage points more |
| Grade A | 0.6% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.6% | unchanged | |
| Grade A | 0.6% | diverged 0.6 percentage points more | |
|
Suite on The scores barely move in this release, but what they mean has changed. Until now the suite pinned one region, eu-west-2, as ground truth. That was
quietly unfair: real DynamoDB disagrees with itself in a handful of places,
and a one-region baseline takes a side without saying so. The clearest case
is the What changed:
One deliberate departure from the RFC that proposed this (#75): the RFC suggested a behaviour conforms if it matches any real region. 2.0.0 scores each target against one region at a time and headlines the best match, so a target only passes a behaviour when at least one real region does what it did, and its headline reflects one coherent region rather than a mix. Match-any scoring would have accepted an engine that combines eu-west-2's answer on one behaviour with us-east-1's on another - a deployment that exists nowhere. That is stricter than the RFC asked for, and it is deliberate. No score moves at release: the one admitted split pins eu-west-2, which is
the only region in the health record until the first sweep runs. Per-target
deltas will be published once the sweep admits more regions; the expected
movement is roughly a tenth of a percent for the six engines that match
us-east-1 on the The suite also grew to 954 tests, up 81, all characterised against real DynamoDB - the control-plane pins in eu-west-2, everything else across four regions (eu-west-2, eu-central-1, us-east-1, ap-southeast-2):
|
Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged |
| Grade A | 0.0% | unchanged |
Showing the 24 most recent runs. The chart above covers the full history, and every run is browsable from Runs.