I want to search(query) a bunch of strings from a column in DynamoDB. Using Dynamoose https://github.com/dynamoose/dynamoose
But it returns nothing. Can you help if this type of query is allowed or is there another syntax for the same.
Code sample
Cat.query({"breed": {"contains": "Terrier","contains": "husky","contains": "wolf"}}).exec()
I want all these breeds , so these are OR queries. Please help.
Two major things here.
First. Query in DynamoDB requires that you search for where a given hasKey that is equal to something. This must be either the hashKey of the table or hashKey of an index. So even if you could get this working, the query will fail. Since you can't do multiple equals for that thing. It must be hashKey = _______. No or statements or anything for that first condition or search.
Second. Just to answer your question. It seems like what you are looking for is the condition.in function. Basically this would change your code to look like something like:
Cat.query("breed").in(["Terrier", "husky", "wolf"]).exec()
Of course. The code above will not work due to the first point.
If you really want to brute force this to work. You can use Model.scan. So basically changing query to scan` in the syntax. However, scan operations are extremely heavy on the DB at scale. It looks through every document/item before applying the filter, then returning it to you. So you get no optimization that you would normally get. If you only have a handful or couple of documents/items in your table, it might be worth it to take the performance hit. In other cases like exporting or backing up the data it also makes sense. But if you are able to avoid scan operations, I would. Might require some rethinking of your DB structure tho.
Cat.scan("breed").in(["Terrier", "husky", "wolf"]).exec()
So the code above would work and I think is what you are asking for, but keep in mind the performance & cost hit you are taking here.
Related
We are new to DynamoDB and struggling with what seems like it would be a simple task.
It is not actually related to stocks (it's about recording machine results over time) but the stock example is the simplest I can think of that illustrates the goal and problems we're facing.
The two query scenarios are:
All historical values of given stock symbol <= We think we have this figured out
The latest value of all stock symbols <= We do not have a good solution here!
Assume that updates are not synchronized, e.g. the moment of the last update record for TSLA maybe different than for AMZN.
The 3 attributes are just { Symbol, Moment, Value }. We could make the hash_key Symbol, range_key Moment, and believe we could achieve the first query easily/efficiently.
We also assume could get the latest value for a single, specified Symbol following https://stackoverflow.com/a/12008398
The SQL solution for getting the latest value for each Symbol would look a lot like https://stackoverflow.com/a/6841644
But... we can't come up with anything efficient for DynamoDB.
Is it possible to do this without either retrieving everything or making multiple round trips?
The best idea we have so far is to somehow use update triggers or streams to track the latest record per Symbol and essentially keep that cached. That could be in a separate table or the same table with extra info like a column IsLatestForMachineKey (effectively a bool). With every insert, you'd grab the one where IsLatestForMachineKey=1, compare the Moment and if the insertion is newer, set the new one to 1 and the older one to 0.
This is starting to feel complicated enough that I question whether we're taking the right approach at all, or maybe DynamoDB itself is a bad fit for this, even though the use case seems so simple and common.
There is a way that is fairly straightforward, in my opinion.
Rather than using a GSI, just use two tables with (almost) the exact same schema. The hash key of both should be symbol. They should both have moment and value. Pick one of the tables to be stocks-current and the other to be stocks-historical. stocks-current has no range key. stocks-historical uses moment as a range key.
Whenever you write an item, write it to both tables. If you need strong consistency between the two tables, use the TransactWriteItems api.
If your data might arrive out of order, you can add a ConditionExpression to prevent newer data in stocks-current from being overwritten by out of order data.
The read operations are pretty straightforward, but I’ll state them anyway. To get the latest value for everything, scan the stocks-current table. To get historical data for a stock, query the stocks-historical table with no range key condition.
My table is (device, type, value, timestamp), where (device,type,timestamp) makes a unique combination ( a candidate for composite key in non-DynamoDB DBMS).
My queries can range between any of these three attributes, such as
GET (value)s from (device) with (type) having (timestamp) greater than <some-timestamp>
I'm using dynamoosejs/dynamoose. And from most of the searches, I believe I'm supposed to use a combination of the three fields (as a single field ; device-type-timestamp) as id. However the set: function of Schema doesn't let me use the object properties (such as this.device) and due to some reasons, I cannot do it externally.
The closest I got (id:uuidv4:hashKey, device:string:GlobalSecIndex, type:string:LocalSecIndex, timestamp:Date:LocalSecIndex)
and
(id:uuidv4:rangeKey, device:string:hashKey, type:string:LocalSecIndex, timestamp:Date:LocalSecIndex)
and so on..
However, while using a Query, it becomes difficult to fetch results of particular device,type as the id, (hashKey or rangeKey) keeps missing from the scene.
So the question. How would you do it for such kind of table?
And point to be noted, this table is meant to gather content from IoT devices, which is generated every 5 mins by each device on an average.
I'm curious why you are choosing DynamoDB for this task. Advanced queries like this seem to be much better suited for a SQL based database as opposed to a NoSQL database. Due to the advanced nature of SQL queries, this task in my experience is a lot easier in SQL databases. So I would encourage you to think about if DynamoDB is truly the right system for what you are trying to do here.
If you determine it is, you might have to restructure your data a little bit. You could do something like having a property that is device-type and that will be the device and type values combined. Then set that as an index, and query based on that and sort by the timestamp, and filter out the results that are not greater than the value you want.
You are correct that currently, Dynamoose does not pass in the entire object into the set function. This is something that personally I'm open to exploring. I'm a member on the GitHub project, and if you would like to submit a PR adding that feature I would be more than happy to help explore that option with you and get that into the codebase.
The other thing you might want to explore is having a DynamoDB stream, that will set that device-type property whenever it gets added to your DynamoDB table. That would abstract that logic out of DynamoDB and your application. I'm not sure if it's necessary for what you are doing to decouple it to that level, but it might be something you want to explore.
Finally, depending on your setup, you could figure out which item will be more unique, device or type, and setup an index on that property. Then just query based on that, and filter out the results of the other property that you don't want. I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for, it will of course work, but I'm not sure how many items you will have in your table, and there get to be questions about scalability at a certain level. One way to solve some of those scalability questions might be to set the TTL of your items if you know that you the timestamp you are querying for is constant, or predictable ahead of time.
Overall there are a lot of ways to achieve what you are looking to do. Without more detail about how many items, what exactly those properties will be doing, the amount of scalability you require, which of those properties will be most unique, etc. it's hard to give a good solution. I would highly encourage you to think about if NoSQL is truly the best way to go. That query you are looking to do seems a LOT more like a SQL query. Not saying it's impossible in DynamoDB, but it will require some thought about how you want to structure your data model, and such.
Considering opinion of #charlie-fish, I decided to jump into Dynamoose and improvise the code to pass the model to the set function of the attribute. However, I discovered that the model is already being passed to default parameter of the attribute. So I changed my Schema to the following:
id:hashKey;default: function(model){ return model.device + "" + model.type; }
timestamp:rangeKey
For anyone landing here on this answer, please note that the default & set functions can access attribute options & schema instance using this . However both those functions should be regular functions, rather than arrow functions.
Keeping this here as an answer, but I won't accept it as an answer to my question for sometime, as I want to wait for someone else to hit out a better approach.
I also want to make sure that if a value is passed for id field, it shouldn't be set. For this I can use set to ignore the actual incoming value, which I don't know how, as of yet.
I had a issue where a valid query didn't return anything while it should:
SELECT *
FROM root
WHERE
(ARRAY_LENGTH(root["orderData"]["_attachments"]) > 0
AND root["orderData"]["_status"] = "ARCHIVEDVALIDATED")
OR root["orderData"]["_status"] = "ARCHIVEDREJECTED"
Thanks to stackoverflow community, I found out that it was because it was taking too much RU and nothing would return.
After digging and trying serveral things, i found out that if I remove ARRAY_LENGTH(root["orderData"]["_attachments"]) > 0, my query goes from 13k RU to 600 RU..
I can't seem to find a way to fix this, the hotfix i found so far, is to remove the ARRAY_LENGTH(root["orderData"]["_attachments"]) > 0 from the query and filter it later in memory (which is not good...)
Am I missing something? How could I fix this?
Thank you!
600RU is still very-very bad. That is not a solution.
The reason for such bad performance is that your query cannot use indexes and doing full scan can never scale. Being bad now, it will get worse as your collection grows.
What you need is make sure your query can use an index to only examine the smallest possible numbers of documents. Hard to propose exact solution without knowing your value data distribution on orderdata.status and orderdata._attachments.length, but you should consider:
Drop the OR. Queries of "this or that" cannot use index. CosmosDB uses just 1 index per query. If orderdata.status values are selective enough you would get
a lot better RU/performance by doing 2 calls and merging results in client.
Precalculate your condition to a separate property and put an index on that. Yes, that's duplicating data, but a few extra bytes cost you nothing, while RU and performance cost you a lot in money as well as in user experience.
You can combine them as well, for example by having 2 queries and storing the array count only. Think about your data and test it out.
To figure out the discrepancy in RUs between the two queries, you may want to check the Query Metrics for both queries as per https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/sql-api-sql-query-metrics.
You could also try to swap the first two expressions and see if this makes any difference. Basically try this query:
SELECT * FROM root WHERE (((root["orderData"]["_status"] = "ARCHIVEDVALIDATED") AND (ARRAY_LENGTH(root["orderData"]["_attachments"]) > 0)) OR (root["orderData"]["_status"] = "ARCHIVEDREJECTED"))
I have a typical scenario that I'm struggling with from a performance standpoint. The user selects a value from a dropdown and clicks a button. A stored procedure takes that value as an input parameter, executes, and returns the results to a grid. For just one of the values ('All'), the query runs for roughly 2.5 minutes. For the rest of the values the query runs less than 1ms.
Obviously, having the user wait for 2.5 minutes just isn't going to fly. So, what are some typical strategies to handle this?
Some of my own thoughts:
New table that stores the information for the 'All' value and is generated nightly
Cache the data on the caching server
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!
Update
A little bit more info:
sp returns two result sets. The first is a group by rollup summary and the second is the first result set, disaggregated (roughly 80,000 rows).
I would first look at if your have the proper indexes in place. Using the Query Analyzer and the Database Tuning Assistant is a simple and often effective way of seeing what indexes might help.
If you still have performance problems after creating the appropriate indexes you might then look at adding tables/views to speed things up. If your query does a lot of joins you might consider creating an indexed view that allows you to do a select with no joins on the denormalized data. Since indexed views are persisted you can see big gains from their use.
You can read up on indexed views here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd171921%28v=sql.100%29.aspx
and read about the database tuning adviser here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms166575.aspx
Also, how many records does "All" return? I have seen people get hung up on the "All" scenario before, but if it returns 1 million records or something then the data is not usable to a person anyways...
Caching data is a good thing, but.... if the SP is inherently flawed, then you might want to actually fix it instead of trying to bandage it with caching.
You might also want to (since you didn't mention here) look at the number of rows "All" returns compared to the other selections and think about your indexes.
Also in your SP does the "All" cause it to run a different sets of tsql as in maybe a case or an if... or is it running the same code just with a different "WHERE"?
It might simply be that "ALL" just returns A LOT of records. You may want to implement paging and partial dataset return using ajax... (kinda like return the first 1000 records early so that it can be displayed and also show a throbber on the screen while the rest of the dataset is returned)
These are all options... if the number of records really isnt that different between ALL and the others... then it probably has something to do with the query/index/program flow.
Is it quicker to make one trip to the database and bring back 3000+ plus rows, then manipulate them in .net & LINQ or quicker to make 6 calls bringing back a couple of 100 rows at a time?
It will entirely depend on the speed of the database, the network bandwidth and latency, the speed of the .NET machine, the actual queries etc.
In other words, we can't give you a truthful general answer. I know which sounds easier to code :)
Unfortunately this is the kind of thing which you can't easily test usefully without having an exact replica of the production environment - most test environments are somewhat different to the production environment, which could seriously change the results.
Is this for one user, or will many users be querying the data? The single database call will scale better under load.
Speed is only one consideration among many.
How flexible is your code? How easy is it to revise and extend when the requirements change? How easy is it for another person to read and maintain your code? How portable is your code? what if you change to a diferent DBMS, or a different progamming language? Are any of these considerations important in your case?
Having said that, go for the single round trip if all other things are equal or unimportant.
You mentioned that the single round trip might result in reading data you don't need. If all the data you need can be described in a single result table, then it should be possible to devise a query that will get that result. That result table might deliver some result data in more than one row, if the query denormalizes the data. In that case, you might gain some speed by obtaining the data in several result tables, and composing the result yourself.
You haven't given enough information to know how much programming effort it will be to compose a single query or to compose the data returned by 6 queries.
As others have said, it depends.
If you know which 6 SQL statements you're going to execute beforehand, you can bundle them into one call to the database, and return multiple result sets using ADO or ADO.NET.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311274
the problem I have here is that I need it all, i just need it displayed separately...
The answer to your question is 1 query for 3000 rows is better than 6 queries for 500 rows. (given that you are bringing all 3000 rows back regardless)
However, there's no way you're going (to want) to display 3000 rows at a time, is there? In all likelihood, irrespective of using Linq, you're going to want to run aggregating queries and get the database to do the work for you. You should hopefully be able to construct the SQL (or Linq query) to perform all required logic in one shot.
Without knowing what you're doing, it's hard to be more specific.
* If you absolutely, positively need to bring back all the rows, then investigate the ToLookup() method for your linq IQueryable< T >. It's very handy for grouping results in non-standard ways.
Oh, and I highly recommend LINQPad (free) for trying out queries with Linq. It has loads of examples, and it also shows you the sql and lambda forms so you can familiarize yourself with Linq<->lambda form<->Sql.
Well, the answer is always "it depends". Do you want to optimize on the database load or on the application load?
My general answer in this case would be to use as specific queries as possible at the database level, therefore using 6 calls.
Thx
I was kind of thinking "ball park", but it sounds as though its a choice thing...the difference is likely small.
I was thinking that getting all the data and manipulating in .net would be the best - I have nothing concrete to base this on (hence the question), I just tend to feel that calls to the DB are expensive and if I know i need all the data...get it in one hit?!?
Part of the problem is that you have not provided sufficient information to give you a precise answer. Obviously, available resources need to be considered.
If you pull 3000 rows infrequently, it might work for you in the short term. However, if there are say 10,000 people that execute the same query (ignoring cache effects), this could become a problem for both the app and db.
Now in the case of something like pagination, it makes sense to pull in just what you need. But that would be a general rule to try to only pull what is necessary. It's much more elegant to use a scalpel instead of a broadsword. =)
If you are talking about a query that has already been run by SQL (so optimized by SQL Server), working with LINQ or a SqlDataReader might actually have the same performance.
The only difference will be "how hard will it be to maintain your code?"
LINQ doesn't query anything to the database until you ask for the result with ".ToList()" or ".ToArray()" or even ".Count()". LINQ is dynamically building your query so it is exactly the same as having a SqlDataReader but with runtime verification.
Rather than speculating, why don't you try both and measure the results?
It depends
1) if your connector implementation precaches a lot of objects AND you have big rows (for example blobs, contry polygons etc.) you have a problem, you have to download a LOT of data. I've optimalized once a code that had this problem and it was just downloading some megs of garbage all the time via localhost, and my software runs now 10 times faster because i removed the precaching by an option
2) If your rows are small and you have a good chance that you need to read through all the 3000, you're better going on a big resultset
3) If you don't use prepared statements, all queries have to be parsed! Big resultset might be better.
Hope it helped
I always stick to the rule of "bring in what I need" and nothing more...the problem I have here is that I need it all, I just need it displayed separately.
So say...
I have a table with userid and typeid. I want to display all records with a userid, and display on the page in grids say separated by typeid.
At the moment I call sproc that does "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1",
then on the page set the datasource of a grid to from t in tab where typeid=2 select t;
Rather than calling a different sproc "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1 and typeid=2" 6 times.
??