I am wondering if Amazon Dynamodb Global secondary indexes can be used for a realtime application with very heavy writes. Ex: Chat application.
where global secondary indexes need to be updated in sub-millisecond latency as soon the main table write/update is done. Would that be possible?
With those requirements, at this time, no. While DynamoDB can handle VERY heavy write throughput, the data currently will replicate from the table to the GSI in single digit millisecond latency, not sub-millisecond. Just make sure you get your data model correct.
Related
We use Cosmos DB to track all our devices and also data that is related to the device (and not stored in the device document itself) is stored in the same container with the same partition ID.
Both the device document and the related documents have /deviceId as the partition key. When a device is removed, then I remove the device document. I actually want to remove the entire partition, but this doesn't seem to be possible. So I revert to a query that queries for all items with this partition key and remove them from the database.
This works fine, but may consume a lot of RUs if there is a lot of related data (which may be true in some cases). I would rather just remove the device and schedule all related data for removal later (it doesn't hurt to have them in the database for a while). When RU utilization is low, then I start removing these items. Is there a standard solution to do this?
The best solution would be to schedule this and that Cosmos DB would process these commands when it has spare RUs, just like with the TTL deletion. Is this even possible?
A feature is now in preview to delete all items by partition key using fire and forget background processing model with a limited amount of available throughput. There's a signup link in the feature request page to get access to preview.
Currently, the API looks like a new DeleteAllItemsByPartitionKey method in the SDK.
It definitely is possible to set a TTL and then let Cosmos handle expiring data out of the container when it is idle. However, the cost to update the document in the first place is about what it costs to delete it anyway so you're not gaining much.
An approach as you suggest, may be to have a separate container (or even a queue) where you insert a new item with the deviceId to retire. Then in the evenings or during a time when you know the system is idle. Run a job that reads the next deviceId in the queue, queries for all the items with that partition key, then deletes the data or sets the TTL to expire the data.
There is a feature to delete an entire partition in the works that would be perfect for this scenario (in fact, it's designed for it) but no ETA on availability.
I have use case where I write data in Dynamo db in two table say t1 and t2 in transaction.My app needs to read data from these tables lot of times (1 write, at least 4 reads). I am considering DAX vs Elastic Cache. Anyone has any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
K
ElastiCache is not intended for use with DynamoDB.
DAX is good for read-heavy apps, like yours. But be aware that DAX is only good for eventually consistent reads, so don't use it with banking apps, etc. where the info always needs to be perfectly up to date. Without further info it's hard to tell more, these are just two general points to consider.
Amazon DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) is a fully managed, highly available, in-memory cache that can reduce Amazon DynamoDB response times from milliseconds to microseconds, even at millions of requests per second. While DynamoDB offers consistent single-digit millisecond latency, DynamoDB with DAX takes performance to the next level with response times in microseconds for millions of requests per second for read-heavy workloads. With DAX, your applications remain fast and responsive, even when a popular event or news story drives unprecedented request volumes your way. No tuning required. https://aws.amazon.com/dynamodb/dax/
AWS recommends that you use **DAX as solution for this requirement.
Elastic Cache is an old method and it is used to store the session states in addition to the cache data.
DAX is extensively used for intensive reads through eventual consistent reads and for latency sensitive applications. Also DAX stores cache using these parameters:-
Item cache - populated with items with based on GetItem results.
Query cache - based on parameters used while using query or scan method
Cheers!
I'd recommend to use DAX with DynamoDB, provided you're having more read calls using item level API (and NOT query level API), such as GetItem API.
Why? DAX has one weird behavior as follows. From, AWS,
"Every write to DAX alters the state of the item cache. However, writes to the item cache don't affect the query cache. (The DAX item cache and query cache serve different purposes, and operate independently from one another.)"
Hence, If I elaborate, If your query operation is cached, and thereafter if you've write operation that affect's result of previously cached query and if same is not yet expired, in that case your query cache result would be outdated.
This out of sync issue, is also discussed here.
I find DAX useful only for cached queries, put item and get item. In general very difficult to find a use case for it.
DAX separates queries, scans from CRUD for individual items. That means, if you update an item and then do a query/scan, it will not reflect changes.
You can't invalidate cache, it only invalidates when ttl is reached or nodes memory is full and it is dropping old items.
Take Aways:
doing puts/updates and then queries - two seperate caches so out of sync
looking for single item - you are left only with primary key and default index and getItem request (no query and limit 1). You can't use any indexes for gets/updates/deletes.
Using ConsistentRead option when using query to get latest data - it works, but only for primary index.
Writing through DAX is slower than writing directly to Dynamodb since you have a hop in the middle.
XRay does not work with DAX
Use Case
You have queries that you don't really care they are not up to date
You are doing few putItem/updateItem and a lot of getItem
Edit: After posting the question I thought I could also make this post a quick reference for those of you needs a quick peek at some of the differences between these two technologies which might help you decide on one of them eventually. I will be editing this question and adding more info as I learn more.
I have decided to use firebase for the backend of my project. For firestore is says "the next generation of the realtime database". Now I am trying to decide which way to go. Realtime database or cloud firestore?
Billing:
At a first glance, it looks like firestore charges per number of results returned, number of reads, number of writes/updates etc. Real-time database charges based on the data transmitted. The number of read-write operations is irrelevant. They both also charge on the data stored on the google servers too (I think in this respect firestore is cheaper one). Why am I mentioning this price point? Because from my point of view, although it might a lower weight, it is also a point to consider while choosing the one over the other.
Scaling:
Cloudstore seems to scale horizontally seamlessly. I think this is not possible with the real-time database.
Edit:
In the real-time database, you need to shard your data yourself using multiple databases. And you can only do this if you are in BLAZE pracing plan.
ref: https://firebase.google.com/docs/database/usage/sharding
Performance & Indexing:
Another thing is the real-time database data structure is different in both. The real-time database stores the data as a JSON object in any way we structure them. Firestore structures the data as collections and documents. And hence the querying also changes between the two.
I think firestore does auto indexing which increases the read performance greatly too (which will decrease read performance). I am not sure if this is also the case with the real-time database.
Edit:
The real-time database does not automatically index your data. You need to do it yourself after a solid inspection of your data and your needs.
ref:https://firebase.google.com/docs/database/security/indexing-data
What other differences can you think of?
What would be (or has been) your choice for different types of projects?
Do you still go with the real-time database or have you migrated from that to the firestore? If so why?
And one last thing. How would you compare the SDKs of these two?
Thanks a lot!
What other differences can you think of?
what i think, ok. I use realtime-database for 6 months experience and difference is, firestore easy for sorting data. As Example, i want to retrieving user name based timestamp.
Query firstQuery = firestore.collection("Names").orderBy("timestamp", Query.Direction.DESCENDING).limit(10); // load 10 names
What would be (or has been) your choice for different types of
projects?
For me, Realtime-Database for Data Streaming when i work with Arduino, i want to store Drone Speed.
And Firestore for SMART OFFICE, like Air Conditioner, or light-room and Enterprise like Inventory Quantities, etc.
Do you still go with the real-time database or have you migrated from
that to the firestore? If so why?
still go with real-time because i need TREE for displaying streaming data strucure instead of query TABLE like firestore.
I am using janusGraph-0.2.0 with Cassandra backend with ES.
I want to store no.of views in Vertex property, Need an efficient and scalable way to increment/store the views count without impacting read performance.
Read views property from graph while fetching vertex, and update new views count in another query. (Wont impact read performance, but counter is not synchronised)
g.V().has("key","keyId").valueMap(true);
g.V(id).property('views', 21);
Using sack to store value 1, and add it to views property.
g.withSack(0).V().has("key","keyId").
sack(assign).by("views").sack(sum).by(constant(1)).
property("views", sack())
Use in-memory storage (Redis) to increment counters, and persist the updates in graph periodically.
Any other better approach ?
Is there any way to use cassendra's counter functionality in janusGraph?
There is no way to use Cassandra counters with JanusGraph. Even more, there is no way to use Cassandra counters with general Cassandra table. The logic of Cassandra counter developed in such way that updating the counter don't require a lock. That is why you get a lot of limitations in exchange for great performance.
Counting views isn't that easy task. In short, my suggestion would be to go with option 3.
I would go with Redis and periodical update to JanusGraph in case when we are in a single data center and your single master server can handle all requests (you can ofcourse use some hash ring to split your counters among different Redis servers but it will increase complexity costs for maintenance).
In case you have multiple data centers your single master Redis server cannot handle all requests I would go with Cassandra counters.
In case you have a very big amount of view events so even Cassandra counters (with their cache) cannot handle all requests because the disk is accessed too many times and you cannot scale more because of high cost then the logic would be harder. I have never been in such situation so it is just theoretically. In this case I would develop the application servers to cache and group views and periodically send this cached data to RabbitMQ workers so that they could update Cassandra counters and then update necessary vertex with total views amount in JanusGraph. In such case very frequently vertex views would be grouped so that we don't need to update counter with +1 each time but with +100 or +1000 views in a single update. It would decease disk usage very much and you would have eventually consistent and fast counters. Again, this solution is only theoretical and should be tested. I believe other solutions also exist.
We are looking to use AWS DynamoDB for storing application logs. Logs from multiple components in our system would be stored here. We are expecting a lot of writes and only minimal number of reads.
The client that we use for writing into DynamoDB generates a UUID for the partition key, but using this makes it difficult to actually search.
Most prominent search cases are,
Search based on Component / Date / Date time
Search based on JobId / File name
Search based on Log Level
From what I have read so far, using a UUID for the partition key is not suitable for our case. I am currently thinking about using either / for our partition key and ISO 8601 timestamp as our sort key. Does this sound reasonable / widely used setting for such an use case ?
If not kindly suggest alternatives that can be used.
Using UUID as partition key will efficiently distribute the data amongst internal partitions so you will have ability to utilize all of the provisioned capacity.
Using sortable (ISO format) timestamp as range/sort key will store the data in order so it will be possible to retrieve it in order.
However for retrieving logs by anything other than timestamp, you may have to create indexes (GSI) which are charged separately.
Hope your logs are precious enough to store in DynamoDB instead of CloudWatch ;)
In general DynamoDB seems like a bad solution for storing logs:
It is more expensive than CloudWatch
It has poor querying capabilities, unless you start utilising global secondary indexes which will double or triple your expenses
Unless you use random UUID for hash key, you are risking creating hot partitions/keys in your db (For example, using component ID as a primary or global secondary key, might result in throttling if some component writes much more often than others)
But assuming you already know these drawbacks and you still want to use DynamoDB, here is what I would recommend:
Use JobId or Component name as hash key (one as primary, one as GSI)
Use timestamp as a sort key
If you need to search by log level often, then you can create another local sort key, or you can combine level and timestamp into single sort key. If you only care about searching for ERROR level logs most of the time, then it might be better to create a sparse GSI for that.
Create a new table each day(let's call it "hot table"), and only store that day's logs in that table. This table will have high write throughput. Once the day finishes, significantly reduce its write throughput (maybe to 0) and only leave some read capacity. This way you will reduce risk of running into 10 GB limit per hash key that Dynamo DB has.
This approach also has an advantage in terms of log retention. It is very easy and cheap to remove log older than X days this way. By keeping old table capacity very low you will also avoid very high costs. For more complicated ad-hoc analysis, use EMR