Research Studio

See which models back each claim.

Several models answer one question. The synthesis lists the claims in their answers and marks who backs or disputes each one.

Positions checked by Jev, TypeSafe's decision model.

Keimodel

Model Pit

Studios

Research

Marketing

Translation

Image

Data

History

Search history

How do transformers work in machine learning?

Write a Python function to find all prime numbers up to n

142 creditsTop up

Sign out

Model presetsDefault

ResponsesSynthesis

OpenAIGPT-5

Short answer: it depends on your access patterns, consistency/transaction needs, and how far you need to scale writes. Here’s a decision framework and practical next steps. Key questions to decide - Access pattern: Are >95% of requests single-row by primary key with a few well-known secondary queries? If yes, DynamoDB fits. If you need flexible querying, ad‑hoc filters, joins, or heavy analytics on the same store, prefer Postgres and shard/partition. - Transactions/consistency: Do you need multi-row/multi-table transactions, referential integrity, or complex constraints? If yes, stay with Postgres (shard/partition). Dynamo has limited transactions and no FKs. - Item size and update pattern: Are items ≤400 KB and updates mostly idempotent/atomic by key? If yes, Dynamo fits. Large rows, frequent partial updates across many columns favor Postgres. - Hot keys: Can you guarantee a well-distributed partition key (no hotspots, monotonic IDs, or skewed tenants)? If not, Dynamo can throttle; Postgres shards can isolate hotspots. - Write scale target: If you truly need consistent 6–7 figure writes/sec with low ops overhead, Dynamo is simpler. If you’re in the low-to-mid 5 figures, Postgres with proper partitioning/sharding and tuning is often enough. - Query latency: Dynamo is great for single-digit-ms key lookups. If you need complex queries fast without ETL, Postgres wins. - Operational model and cost: Dynamo offloads scaling/ops but charges per write (per 1 KB unit). Postgres sharding adds operational complexity but can be cost-effective for large, small-row write volumes. What to try on Postgres before a re-architecture - Ensure schema/index hygiene: - Keep only essential indexes; each index multiplies write cost. - Use UUIDv7/ULIDs or hash-based PKs to avoid hot pages if inserts are append-only with monotonic IDs. - For heavy upserts, partition by hash and ensure the unique index is local per partition to reduce contention. - Partitioning: - Native partitioning (range/time for append-only, or hash for uniformity). Keep partitions modest (e.g., 5–20M rows each) and prune. - Tuning: - Enable wal_compression; increase autovacuum workers; lower autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor on hot tables; ensure enough IOPS. - Use synchronous_commit = off for non-critical latencies (accepts small data loss window). - Batch writes (COPY or multi-row INSERTs). Debounce/merge frequent tiny updates if possible. - Use PgBouncer (transaction pooling) to avoid connection storms. - Cache sequences (e.g., cache 10000) to reduce WAL chatter; avoid sequence hotspots. - Architecture: - If multi-tenant, shard by tenant/user hash at the application or use Citus to distribute by a shard key. Combine with per-shard partitioning. - Consider Citus (managed options exist) for horizontal write scaling with SQL compatibility. When DynamoDB is the better move - Access is key-value/document with predictable queries; you can design a good partition/sort key and GSI or two. - You need essentially unbounded write throughput with little ops work, single-digit-ms p99, and can tolerate NoSQL constraints. - Items ≤400 KB, and you can avoid hot keys (use high-cardinality, well-distributed partition key; avoid time-ordered keys without bucketing). - You want built-in TTL, Streams, and easy multi-writer scaling in one region. Multi-region active-active with global tables is a plus. When sharding Postgres is the better move - You rely on SQL flexibility, joins, constraints, or multi-row transactions. - You need complex filtering/secondary indexes beyond what a couple GSIs can do. - You have some hot entities you’d rather isolate than have throttle risk on a hot partition. - Your target write rate is high but achievable with partitioning/sharding and hardware (NVMe, ample RAM, tuned autovacuum). Cost and limits quick notes - DynamoDB: You pay per write unit (~1 KB per WCU). Hot partition limits matter (roughly 1000 WCU per partition); you must ensure good key distribution so capacity can fan out. On-demand is easy but can be pricey at sustained high rates. - Postgres: You pay for instances/storage/IO; write amplification from indexes and VACUUM. For steady heavy writes with small rows, a few beefy shards can be cheaper. Migration complexity - DynamoDB requires a data model redesign. Typical path: backfill via CDC (logical decoding/DMS/Kafka) → dual-write → verify → cutover. Plan for eventual consistency around GSIs and Streams consumers. - Sharding Postgres: you’ll need a router (by shard key), rebalancing plan, and cross-shard query strategy. Citus reduces app changes but adds cluster ops. What I need to recommend confidently - Peak/avg write TPS and item/row size; % inserts vs updates vs upserts. - Current indexes per hot table and bloat/VACUUM stats. - Top queries/access patterns; need for joins/aggregations/constraints. - Hot key/tenant skew characteristics. - Latency SLOs and durability/consistency requirements. - Growth projections (6–12 months). - Tolerance for schema changes and for an application rewrite. Pragmatic next steps 1) Measure and fix the likely Postgres bottlenecks: - Drop non-critical indexes on hot tables; batch writes; enable wal_compression; tune autovacuum; ensure NVMe and sufficient IOPS. - Introduce partitioning (hash or time) if not present. 2) Run two quick spikes in parallel: - DynamoDB: design partition/sort key + 1–2 GSIs; load test with your peak write payload and distribution; check cost and throttle/headroom. - Postgres: prototype sharding (Citus or app-level hash by tenant/id) and load test with realistic batching. 3) Compare: p99 latency, sustained write headroom, cost, and dev/ops complexity. Pick the simpler solution that meets SLOs for the next 18–24 months. If you share your workload numbers and access patterns, I can give a pointed recommendation and a concrete design for either path.

Success· ~1,480 tok ctx

98.9

AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5

Postgres Sharding vs. DynamoDB Migration Before deciding, I'd want to know: what specifically is failing? "Write-heavy" isn't enough info—the bottleneck could be disk I/O, lock contention, connection limits, or replication lag. Each points to different fixes. Questions to answer first 1. What's actually saturating? CPU, IOPS, WAL throughput, connection count? Often you can buy 6-12 months with better indexing, batching writes, tuning checkpoint settings, or moving to better hardware/storage before any architectural change. 2. Do you need multi-row transactions or complex queries? If yes, DynamoDB will hurt—you'll rebuild transactional logic in application code. 3. Is your access pattern already key-value-ish? Single-item lookups/writes by a well-known key, no ad-hoc queries, no joins? DynamoDB fits naturally. If you're doing range scans, secondary indexes, or reporting queries, you'll fight the model constantly. 4. How much of the codebase/team expertise is Postgres-specific? A rewrite has real cost beyond the migration itself—ORMs, tooling, debugging habits, hiring. Rough decision framework Shard Postgres if: - You need relational integrity, joins, or ad-hoc query flexibility - Your write hotspot can be partitioned cleanly by a natural key (tenant ID, user ID, etc.) - Team has strong Postgres ops experience - You want to avoid rewriting application logic Move to DynamoDB if: - Access patterns are genuinely key-value/single-table friendly already - You need to scale writes near-linearly without managing partition logic yourself - You're okay with eventual consistency in most paths - You're fine designing around DynamoDB's item-size/query limits up front The usually-overlooked middle options - Citus / Postgres-native sharding gets you horizontal write scaling while keeping SQL semantics—often less painful than a full DynamoDB rewrite. - Write-behind queue + batching: if writes are bursty rather than sustained, a queue (Kafka/SQS) absorbing writes into Postgres in batches can eliminate the problem without any migration. - Separate the hot write path: sometimes only one table/entity is the write bottleneck. Move that to DynamoDB or a specialized store while keeping the rest on Postgres. My honest lean: full migrations to DynamoDB are expensive and hard to reverse. Sharding Postgres (native or via Citus) preserves optionality and existing query patterns. I'd only go DynamoDB if the access pattern is already simple key-value and you're confident that won't change. What does the actual write pattern look like—single-key upserts, or complex multi-table writes?

Success· ~667 tok ctx

13.3

GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash

Moving from Postgres to DynamoDB is a fundamental paradigm shift (relational to NoSQL key-value/document), whereas sharding Postgres keeps your data model intact but adds operational overhead. Here is a decision framework to help you choose the right path. Path A: Move to DynamoDB Choose DynamoDB if your access patterns are simple, your data is mostly denormalized, and you want near-zero infrastructure management. Pros: Virtually Infinite Write Scale: Handles millions of writes/sec seamlessly via partition keys without downtime. Low Operational Overhead: No instances to patch, no read/write split connections to manage, automated replication and backups. Predictable Latency: Single-digit millisecond latency at any scale. Cons / Blockers (Do NOT move if you have these): Dynamic / Ad-hoc Queries: You cannot do arbitrary WHERE clauses, JOINs, or aggregations (SUM, COUNT) efficiently. Complex Transactions: While DynamoDB supports ACID transactions, they are limited to 100 items/4MB and cost 2x the standard write capacity. Large Item Sizes: Hard limit of 400KB per item (including attribute names). High Migration Cost: Requires a complete rewrite of your data-access layer (Single Table Design) and dual-writing during migration. Path B: Shard PostgreSQL Choose Sharding if your system relies heavily on relational features, complex constraints, or analytical querying that cannot easily be remodeled. Pros: Keep the Relational Model: Maintain SQL features, indexes, constraints, and familiar ACID semantics (within a single shard). Keep Existing Codebase: Aside from adding a routing layer/shard key, most of your business logic remains the same. Vendor Agnostic: Runs anywhere (AWS, GCP, Bare Metal) without AWS vendor lock-in. Cons / Operational Risks: Cross-Shard Operations are Expensive: Cross-shard JOINs, aggregations, and distributed transactions (2PC) are notoriously slow and complex. Resharding Overhead: Splitting shards when you outgrow them is operationally risky. Maintenance Burden: Monitoring, backing up, schema-migrating, and upgrading $N$ database instances. Step-by-Step Decision Checklist Before deciding, answer these 4 questions: 1. Can your queries be satisfied by a primary key lookup? Yes (Get by ID, Query by Partition Key + Sort Key): DynamoDB is a great fit. No (Complex JOINs, ad-hoc filters, range queries across multiple entities): Shard Postgres (or use managed sharding like Citus / Azure Cosmos DB for PostgreSQL). 2. What is your team's operational bandwidth? If you lack dedicated DBAs to manage shard routing, rebalancing, and connection pooling (e.g., PgBouncer), DynamoDB will save immense engineering time. 3. Have you exhausted simple Postgres write optimizations? Before sharding or migrating, check if you have tried: Removing unnecessary indexes: Every index adds massive write amplification. Unlogged / Partitioned Tables: Native declarative Postgres partitioning by range/time often solves write contention without true sharding. Tuning wal_writer_delay, synchronous_commit = off, or fillfactor: Often boosts write throughput by 2–5x. Batching writes: Using COPY or multi-row INSERTs instead of single-row writes. 4. Is a hybrid approach possible? Write hot, high-volume event/time-series/state data to DynamoDB (or a log-based store like Kafka/ClickHouse). Keep relational, user, billing, and core business entities in Postgres. Summary Recommendation Go to DynamoDB if your data model is (or can easily become) document/key-value oriented, and you want to permanently eliminate scaling bottlenecks without managing infrastructure. Shard Postgres (preferably using an extension like Citus) if you cannot give up SQL expressiveness, strict foreign keys, or complex transactional guarantees across related entities.

Success· ~1,016 tok ctx

9.9

DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Pro

It depends on your access patterns and data model more than on “write-heavy” alone. Move to DynamoDB if - Writes/reads are mostly by primary key or a known secondary index. - You don’t need joins, complex SQL, or multi-row transactions. - The service can be modeled as key/value or document data. - You want elastic write scaling without managing shards. - Eventual consistency is acceptable, or strong consistency per item is enough. - You are okay with AWS lock-in and DynamoDB pricing. DynamoDB shines for high-throughput writes when the partition key distributes well. If all writes hit one hot key, DynamoDB won’t magically fix that. Shard Postgres if - You need relational integrity, transactions, joins, or ad-hoc SQL. - Writes are high but can be partitioned naturally, e.g. by tenant_id, customer_id, or time. - Your team knows Postgres well and can manage sharding/migrations. - You need complex indexing, constraints, or Postgres features like JSONB, PostGIS, etc. But avoid hand-rolled sharding if possible. Look at: - Postgres declarative partitioning first. - Citus for horizontally scaled Postgres. - Aurora Limitless if you’re on AWS Aurora Postgres and want Postgres-compatible horizontal scaling. Practical rule of thumb If you can redesign the service as a simple key/value or document store without losing required query functionality, DynamoDB is usually the simpler operational path. If you cannot give up SQL, transactions, joins, or complex queries, shard Postgres, but prefer Citus/Aurora Limitless over building your own sharding layer. Also consider a hybrid: use DynamoDB for the high-throughput write path, then stream data into Postgres for querying, reporting, or relational use cases. Before either move, make sure you’ve exhausted single-instance Postgres tuning: partitioning, partial indexes, connection pooling, write batching, and removing unnecessary indexes. TL;DR: DynamoDB if the workload is key/value and SQL is not required. Sharded Postgres if relational features still matter.

Success· ~519 tok ctx

69.8

Should we move a write-heavy service off Postgres to DynamoDB, or shard what we have?

Search Run

Start from an example

Each one opens the studio with the text, settings and models filled in.

Make an engineering callShould we move a write-heavy service off Postgres to DynamoDB, or shard what we have?Try it Check a rule that changedWhat do the EU AI Act's obligations for general-purpose AI models require from a company that deploys one, and which dates apply?Try it Compare vendorsCompare Stripe, Paddle and Lemon Squeezy for a SaaS selling to EU customers: fees, VAT handling and payouts.Try it Check a statisticIs it true that about 70% of online shopping carts are abandoned? Where does the figure come from, and how was it measured?Try it Price an infrastructure choiceWhat does a 3-broker Kafka cluster on AWS cost per month compared with Confluent Cloud at 50 MB/s of writes?Try it Plan an upgradeWhat breaks when upgrading a Next.js 14 app to Next.js 15, and in what order should we fix it?Try it

How it works

1
Ask the question
Type it once. Three models answer by default, up to six if you add more, with web search on.
2
Read the answers
Each model's full answer sits in its own panel, with its time and cost.
3
Check the synthesis
The synthesis lists the claims and marks which models back or dispute each one, and Jev re-checks every position. It costs 3 credits.

Disagreements get their own section.

When the answers split, the synthesis lists each side and the models on it. Every claim shows which models back it and which dispute it.

What it costs

A run on the 3 models above costs 7 credits, about $0.28 on the $20 bundle. The synthesis is 3 credits. Credits never expire, and your first 20 are free.

You pay for questions you ask. That is the whole model.

No plan, no seat, no monthly minimum, nothing to cancel. You buy credits once and they never expire, every model shows its cost before you run it, and we refund any run that does not finish.

Free

Try Keimodel with no commitment.

20 credits on sign-up
The same models as the paid tiers
No credit card required

Get started

Starter

$5one-time

$0.05 per credit

Top up when your free credits run low.

100 credits
Access to all models
Credits never expire

Buy credits

Priced before you run

Every model carries its credit cost in the picker and its real input and output price per million tokens on the panel, and the total for the lineup you have built sits under the Run button. We meter nothing after the fact.

Or bring your own key

Add an OpenRouter key in Settings and every model response runs on your own account and costs you no credits at all. Only the synthesis, which reads every answer and lists the claims, stays on ours.

Questions

Which models answer?

GPT-6 Sol, Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash by default. You can swap them or add up to six models before a run.

Does it search the web?

Yes, web search is on by default. It adds 1 credit per paid model and can be turned off in the prompt box.

What does Jev check?

The synthesis model writes the claims. Jev, TypeSafe's decision model, then reads each answer against every claim and records whether it backs it, disputes it, or leaves it out.

Can I ask a follow-up?

Yes. Each panel keeps its conversation, so a follow-up goes to every model together with its earlier answer.

Try it on your own question.

Several models answer, one synthesis sums them up, and every claim shows which models backed it.

Start free20 free credits to start, no card required