I am trying to create a naming convention for different objects in DynamoDB, such as tables, partition and sort keys, LSIs, GSIs, attributes, etc. I read a lot of articles and there is no common way to do that but want to learn from real-time examples to choose which one will fit best our needs.
The infrastructure I am working on is based on microservices. Along with this, some of our development environments share the same AWS account. Based on this, I ended up with something like this:
Tables: [Environment].[Service Name].[Table Name].ddb-table
GSIs/LSIs: [Environment].[Service Name].[Table Name].[GSI/LSI Name].ddb-[gsi/lsi]
Partition Key: pk ??? (in my understanding, the keys should have abstract names, because the single table stores versatile data in the same key)
Sort Key: sk ??? (in my understanding, the keys should have abstract names, because the single table stores versatile data in the same key)
Attributes: meaningful but as short as possible as they are kept for every item in the table
Different elements are separated by dot (.)
All names are separated by dashes (kebab-case) and in lower case
Tables/GSIs/LSIs are in singular form
Here is an example:
Table: dev.user-service.user-order.ddb-table
LSI: dev.user-service.user-order.lsi1pk.ddb-lsi
GSI: dev.user-service.user-order.gsi1pk.ddb-gsi
What naming conventions do you follow?
Thanks a lot in advance!
My advice:
Use PK and SK as your partition key and sort key.
Don't put table names into code. Use ParameterStore. For example, if you ever do a table restore it will be to a new table name, and if you want to send traffic to the new name you'll not want to change code.
Thus don't get too fixed to any particular table name. Never try to have code predict a table name. Only have them be consistent to help humans.
Don't put regions in your table names. When you switch to Global Tables they all keep the same name. Awkward!
GSIs can be called GSI1, GSI2, etc. GSI keys are GSI1PK and GSI1SK, etc.
Tag your tables with their name if you ever want to track per-table costs later.
Short yet meaningful attribute names are nice because it reduces storage and can reduce RCU/WCU if you're near the 4kb or 1kb lines.
Use difference accounts for dev, staging, and production. If you want to put the names into tables as well to help you spot "OMG I'm in production" that's fine.
If you have lots of attributes as the item payload which aren't used for GSIs or filtering and are always returned together, consider just storing them as a string or binary which gets parsed client side. You can even compress them. It's more efficient and lower latency because it skips the data marshaling.
Related
Keeping in mind the best practices of having a single table and to evenly distribute items across partitions using as unique partition keys as possible in DynamoDB, I am stuck at one problem.
Say my table stores items such as users, items and devices. I am storing the id for each of these items as the partition key. Each id is prefixed with its type such as user-XXXX, item-XXXX & device-XXXX.
Now the problem is how can I query only a certain type of object? For example I want to retrieve all users, how do I do that? It would have been possible if the begin_with operator was allowed for partition keys so I could search for the prefix but the partition keys only allow the equality operator.
If now I use my types as partition keys, for example, user as partition key and then the user-id as the sort key, it would work but it would result in only a few partition keys and thus resulting in the hot keys issue. And creating multiple tables is a bad practice.
Any suggestions are welcome.
This is a great question. I'm also interested to hear what others are doing to solve this problem.
If you're storing your data with a Partition Key of <type>-<id>, you're supporting the access pattern "retrieve an item by ID". You've correctly noted that you cannot use begins_with on a Partition Key, leaving you without a clear cut way to get a collection of items of that type.
I think you're on the right track with creating a Partition Key of <type> (e.g. Users, Devices, etc) with a meaningful Sort Key. However, since your items aren't evenly distributed across the table, you're faced with the possibility of a hot partition.
One way to solve the problem of a hot partition is to use an external cache, which would prevent your DB from being hit every time. This comes with added complexity that you may not want to introduce to your application, but it's an option.
You also have the option of distributing the data across partitions in DynamoDB, effectively implementing your own cache. For example, lets say you have a web application that has a list of "top 10 devices" directly on the homepage. You could create partitions DEVICES#1,DEVICES#2,DEVICES#3,...,DEVICES#N that each stores the top 10 devices. When your application needs to fetch the top 10 devices, it could randomly select one of these partitions to get the data. This may not work for a partition as large as Users, but is a pretty neat pattern to consider.
Extending this idea further, you could partition Devices by some other meaningful metric (e.g. <manufactured_date> or <created_at>). This would more uniformly distribution your Device items throughout the database. Your application would be responsible for querying all the partitions and merging the results, but you'd reduce/eliminate the hot partition problem. The AWS DynamoDB docs discuss this pattern in greater depth.
There's hardly a one size fits all approach to DynamoDB data modeling, which can make the data modeling super tricky! Your specific access patterns will dictate which solution fits best for your scenario.
Keeping in mind the best practices of having a single table and to evenly distribute items across partitions
Quickly highlighting the two things mentioned here.
Definitely even distribution of partitions keys is a best practice.
Having the records in a single table, in a generic sense is to avoid having to Normalize like in a relational database. In other words its fine to build with duplicate/redundant information. So its not necessarily a notion to club all possible data into a single table.
Now the problem is how can I query only a certain type of object? For
example I want to retrieve all users, how do I do that?
Let's imagine that you had this table with only "user" data in it. Would this allow to retrieve all users? Ofcourse not, unless there is a single partition with type called user and rest of it say behind a sort key of userid.
And creating multiple tables is a bad practice
I don't think so its considered bad to have more than one table. Its bad if we store just like normalized tables and having to use JOIN to get the data together.
Having said that, what would be a better approach to follow.
The fundamental difference is to think about the queries first to derive at the table design. That will even suggest if DynamoDB is the right choice. For example, the requirement to select every user might be a bad use case altogether for DynamoDB to solve.
The query patterns will further suggest, what is the best partition key in hand. The choice of DynamoDB here is it because of high ingest and mostly immutable writes?
Do I always have the partition key in hand to perform the select that I need to perform?
What would the update statements look like, will it have again the partition key to perform updates?
Do I need to further filter by additional columns and can that be the default sort order?
As you start answering some of these questions, a better model might appear altogether.
I have decided to implement the following ID strategy for my documents, which combines the document "type" with the ID:
doc.id = "docType_" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("n");
// create document in collection
This results in IDs such as the following for my documents:
usr_19d17037ea7f41a9b20db1a90f71d30d
usr_89fe82c93b264076aa1b6e1fb4813aaf
usr_2aa58c1c970a4c5eaa206a755c1c7bf4
msg_ec43510732ae47a6a5d5f323b7461d68
msg_3b03ceeb7e06490d998c3e368b435851
With a RangeIndex policy in place on the ID, I should be able to query the collection for specific types. For example:
SELECT * FROM c WHERE STARTSWITH(c.id, 'usr_') AND ...
Since this is a web application with many different document types, many of my app's queries would implement this STARTSWITH filter by default.
My main concern here is the use of a random GUID string on the ID. I know that in SQL Server I have had issues with index performance and fragmentation while using random GUIDs on the primary key in a clustered index.
Is there a similar concern here? It seems that in DocumentDB, the care of managing indexes has been abstracted away from you. Would a sequential ID be more ideal/performant in any way?
tl;dr: Use separate fields for the type and a GUID-only ID and use hash indexes on both.
This answer is necessarily going to be somewhat opinionated based upon the nature of your questions. Let me first address what appears to be your primary concern, namely the fragmentation of indexes effecting performance.
DocumentDB assumes the use of GUIDs and a hash index (as opposed to a range index) is ideally suited to finding the one matching entity by GUID. On the other hand, if you want to find a set of documents by looking at the beginning of the string, I suspect that would probably be more performant with a range index. This assumes that STARTSWITH is only optimized when used with range indexes, but I don't know for a fact that it is optimized even when you have a range index.
My recommendation would be to use separate fields for the type and a GUID-only ID and use hash indexes on both. This gives you the advantage of being assured that queries like the one you show would be highly performant and that queries which combine a type clause with other parameters would also be able to use at least one index. Note, hash indexes of this type (say 2x 3 bytes = 6 bytes/document) are highly space efficient, so don't worry about needed two of them. Those two combined should be much smaller than one range index which needs to have enough precision to cover the entire length of your type+GUID.
Other than the performance and space reasons already discussed, I can see a couple of other disadvantages to combining the type with the GUID: 1) when trying to retrieve a single document (both for direct use and as part of a foreign key lookup), having the GUID separate and using a hash index will be faster and more space efficient than using a range index on the combined field; 2) Combining the type with the ID greatly complicates certain migrations that commonly need to be done at a later date. Let's say that you decide to break your users into authors and readers for example. Users are foreign key referenced in other document types (blog post author, reader comment, etc.) by the user ID. If that ID includes the type, then you would need to not only change the user documents to accomplish the migration but you'd also need to find and change every foreign key. If the two fields (GUID and type) were separate, then you'd only need to change the user documents. Agile software craftsmanship is largely about making decisions that provide flexibility down the road.
As for the use of a sequential index, the trend in databases in general and NoSQL in particular, is that the complexity of providing a monotonically increasing sequential ID is greater than the space-efficiency advantages of that over a GUID. If you are going to stick with DocumentDB, I recommend that you just go with the flow and use GUIDs.
I have a table in DynamoDB:
Id: int, hash key
Name: string
(there are many more columns, but I omitted them)
Typically I just pull out and update items by their Id, and this schema works fine for that.
However, one of the requirements is to have an auto-completing drop down box based on the name. I want to be able to query all items in this DynamoDB table for Name columns starting with a query string.
The SQL way of solving this would be to just add an index on Name and write a query like SELECT Id FROM table WHERE Name LIKE 'query%', but I can't figure out a DynamoDB-friendly way of doing this.
I have considered a few ways to solve this:
Scan the table. This is the easiest option, but least efficient. There's a bit more data in this table than I would be comfortable frequently scanning.
Scan + cache it in memory. But then I have to worry about cache invalidation etc.
Make Name a range key, which supports a begins_with function on the query. However, I'd still have to Scan the table since I want to retrieve results for every single hash key, so this doesn't really work.
Make a global secondary index and query it only with the range key. This also doesn't appear to be possible. I could have a column with a static value and use that as the hash key for the GSI, but that seems like a really ugly hack.
Use a full text search engine like CloudSearch, but this seems like massive overkill for my use case.
Is there a simple solution to this issue?
The use case you described is not directly supported by DynamoDB's Query operation today - DynamoDB typically requires you to specify a hashkey then query on the range key accordingly.
However, there is a popular scatter-gather technique that is commonly used for usecase such as yours. In this case, you would add an attribute bucket_id and create a global secondary index with bucket_id as hash key, and Name as the range key.
The bucket_id refers to a fixed range of IDs or numbers, with enough cardinality to ensure your global secondary index is well-distributed. For instance, bucket_id could range from 0 to 99. Then when updating your base table, whenever a new entry is added, a random bucket_id between 0 and 99 is assigned to it.
During your autocomplete query, the application would send 100 separate queries (scatter) for each bucket_id value (0 to 99) and use BEGINS_WITH on the range key Name. After the results are retrieved, the application would have to combine the 100 sets of responses and re-sort as necessary (gather).
The above process may seem a bit cumbersome, but it allows your system/table to scale well by ensuring the load is evenly distributed over a fixed key range. You can increase the bucket_id range as appropriate. To save cost, you can choose to project KEYS_ONLY onto your global secondary index, so cost of querying is minimized.
The problem is that DynamoDB is essentially a key-value store with support for operations against a single key, and you are trying to search all values which doesn't work well . The "simplest" solution to this is to have a known hash key and then you can Query it directly and specify conditions.
For example, you could query with hash_key='name_search' and range_key=begins_with(myText) or other_key=begins_with(myText) and get the use case you are describing. This will work fine for small sets of data that do not require a large amount of provisioned RCUs.
The problem is that this does not scale because you are not following any of the DynamoDB best practices (in fact, this is an anti-pattern). Take a look at the Understand Partition Behavior documentation
My suggestion would be to use a different service/solution to accomplish this rather than trying to squeeze DynamoDB into this use case.
I have an ASP.NET data entry application that is used by multiple clients. The application consists of multiple data entry modules that are common to all clients.
I now have multiple clients that want their own custom module added which will typically consist of a dozen or so data points. Some values will be text, others numeric, some will be dropdown selections, etc.
I'm in need of suggestions for handling the data model for this. I have two thoughts on how to handle. First would be to create a new table for each new module for each client. This is pretty clean but I don't particular like it. My other thought is to have one table with columns for each custom data point for each client. This table would end up with a lot of columns and a lot of NULL values. I don't really like either solution and suspect there's a better way to do this, so any feedback you have will be appreciated.
I'm using SQL Server 2008.
As always with these questions, "it depends".
The dreaded key-value table.
This approach relies on a table which lists the fields and their values as individual records.
CustomFields(clientId int, fieldName sysname, fieldValue varbinary)
Benefits:
Infinitely flexible
Easy to implement
Easy to index
non existing values take no space
Disadvantage:
Showing a list of all records with complete field list is a very dirty query
The Microsoft way
The Microsoft way of this kind of problem is "sparse columns" (introduced in SQL 2008)
Benefits:
Blessed by the people who design SQL Server
records can be queried without having to apply fancy pivots
Fields without data don't take space on disk
Disadvantage:
Many technical restrictions
a new field requires DML
The xml tax
You can add an xml field to the table which will be used to store all the "extra" fields.
Benefits:
unlimited flexibility
can be indexed
storage efficient (when it fits in a page)
With some xpath gymnastics the fields can be included in a flat recordset.
schema can be enforced with schema collections
Disadvantages:
not clearly visible what's in the field
xquery support in SQL Server has gaps which makes getting your data a real nightmare sometimes
There are maybe more solutions, but to me these are the main contenders. Which one to choose:
key-value seems appropriate when the number of extra fields is limited. (say no more than 10-20 or so)
Sparse columns is more suitable for data with many properties which are filled out infrequent. Sounds more appropriate when you can have many extra fields
xml column is very flexible, but a pain to query. Appropriate for solutions that write rarely and query rarely. ie: don't run aggregates etc on the data stored in this field.
I'd suggest you go with the first option you described. I wouldn't over think it. The second option you outlined would be a bad idea in my opinion.
If there are fields common to all the modules you're adding to the system you should consider keeping those in a single table then have other tables with the fields specific to a particular module related back to the primary key in the common table. This is basically table inheritance (http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server) and will centralize the common module data and make it easier to query across modules.
I am planning to create a website using ASP.NET and SQL Server. However, my plan for the database design leaves me wondering if there is a better way.
The website will serve as a repository of information for various users. I figure I would have two databases, a Membership and Profile database.
The profile database would contain user data for all users, where each user may have ~20 tables. I would create the tables when the user account is created and generate a key used to name the tables. The tables are not directly related.
For Example a set of tables for two different users could look like:
User1 Tables - TransactionTable_Key1, AssetTable_Key1, ResearchTable_Key1 ....;
User2 Tables - TransactionTable_Key2, AssetTable_Key2, ResearchTable_Key2 ....;
The Key1, Key2 etc.. values would be retrieved based on the MembershipID data when the account was created. This could result in a very large number of tables over time. I'm not sure if this will limit scalability by setting up the database in this way. Any recommendations?
Edit: I should mention that some of these tables would contain 20k+ rows.
Realistically it sounds like you only really need one database for this.
From the way you worded your question, it sounds like you're trying to dynamically create tables for users as they create accounts. I wouldn't recommend this method.
What you want to do is create a master table that contains a primary key for each individual user. I'm assuming this is the Membership table. Then create the ~20 tables that you need for the profiles of these members. Every record, no matter the number of users that you have, will go into these tables. These 20 tables would need to have a foreign key pointing to the unique identifier of the Membership table.
When you want to query a Member for their user information, just select from the tables where the membership table's primary Id matches the foreign key in the profile tables.
This would result in only a few tables in the end and is easily maintainable and follows better database design.
Your ORM layer (EF, LINQ, DAL code) will hate having to deal with one set of tables per tenant. It is much better to have either one set of tables for all tenant in a single database, or a separate database per tenant. The later is only better if schema upgrade has to be vetted by tenant (like Salesforce.com has). If you can afford to upgrade all tenant to a new schema at once then there is no reason for database per tenant.
When you design a schema that hold multiple tenant the important things to remember are
don't use heaps, all tables must be clustered index
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every clustered
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every non-clustered index too
add the Left.tenantID = right.tenantID predicate to every join
add the table.TenantID = #currentTenantID to every query
These are fairly simple rules and if you obey them (with no exceptions) you will get a perfect partitioning per tenant of every query (no query will ever ever scan rows in a range of a different tenant) so you eliminate contention between tenants. To be more through, you can disable lock escalation to make sure no tenant escalates to block every other tenant.
This design also lends itself to table partitioning and to sharing the database for scale-out.
You definitely don't want to create a set of tables for each user, and you would want these only in one database. Even with SQL Server 2008's large capacity for tables (note really total objects in database), it would quickly become unmanageable. Your best bet is to use 20 tables, and separate them via a column into user areas. You might consider partitioning the tables by this user value, but that should be tested for performance reasons too.
Yes, since the tables only contain id, key, and value, why not make one single table?
Have the columns:
id, user ID, key, value
Put an Index on the user ID field.
A key idea behind a relational database is that the table structure does not change. You create a solid set of tables, and these are the "bones" of your application.
Cheers,
Daniel
Neal,
The solution really depends on your requirement. If security and data access are concern and you have only a handful of users, you can set up a different db for each user with access for him set to only his/her database.
Other wise, what Daniel Williams suggested is a good alternative where you have one DB and tables laid out with a indexed column partitioning the users data rows.
It's hard to tell from the summary, but it looks like you are designing for dynamic attribution by user. This design approach is called EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) and consists of a simple base collection key (UserID, SiteID, ProductID...) and then rows consisting of name/value pairs. In a more complex version, categories are sometimes added as "super columns" to the tuple/row and provide sub-groupings for a set of name/value pairs.
Designing in this way moves responsibility for data type integrity, relational integrity and tuple integrity to the application layer.
The risk with doing this in a relational system involves the breaking of the tuple or row into a set of rows. Updates, deletes, missing values and the definition of a tuple are no longer easily accessible through human interaction. As your application evolves and the definition of a tuple changes, it becomes almost impossible to tell if a name/value pair is missing because it's part of an earlier-version tuple or because it was unintentionally deleted. Ad-hoc research as well becomes harder to manage as business analysts must keep an understanding of the virtual structure either in their heads or in documentation provided.
If you are looking to implement an EAV model, I would suggest you look at a non-relational solution (nosql) like MongoDB or CouchDB. These stores allow a developer to save and retrieve "documents" or json-formatted messages that are essentially made up of a collection of name/value pairs and can look very much like a serialized object. The advantage here is that you can store dynamic attribution without breaking your tuple. You always know that you have a complete tuple because you can store and retrieve it as a single "blob" of information that can be serialized and deserialized at-will. You can also update single attributes within the tuple, if that's a concern.
MongoDB also provides some database-like features such as multiple-attribute indexes, a query engine that is robust in comparison to other similar non-relational offerings and a sharding solution that is much less trouble than trying to do it with MySQL.
I hope this helps.