I'm having a hard time modeling a certain scenario without having to appeal to more than one request.
Think about a People table, each Person can be related to eachother n times, and this relationship has a description.
Consider the following modelling :
As you can see, I have two People, and person_0001 is child of person_0002.
Now, in this case, if I want to get all relationships that person_0001 has, it's easy, I just query :
GET WHERE PK = "person_0001" AND SK.BEGINS_WITH("rel")
But, since it is bidirectional, how can I get the relationships person_0002 has?
I could use a GSI that inverts the keys, so with one request I can simply query both tables at once.
But real problem comes when I need to update/delete, How can I delete/update all relationships person_0002 has with only one request? I can only read from GSIs.
It's a big difficulty I have in general, what do I do when I need to do a delete/update/write on a GSI?
Related
I've been thinking a lot about the possible strategies of querying unbound amount of items.
For example, think of a forum - you could have any number of forum posts categorized by topic. You need to support at least 2 access patterns: post details view and list of posts by topic.
// legend
PK = partition key, SK = sort key
While it's easy to get a single post, you can't effectively query a list of posts without a scan.
PK = postId
Great for querying all the posts for given topic but all are in same partition ("hot partition").
PK = topic and SK = postId#addedDateTime
Store items in buckets, e.g new bucket for each day. This would push a lot of logic to application layer and add latency. E.g if you need to get 10 posts, you'd have to query today's bucket and if bucket contains less than 10 items, query yesterday's bucket, etc. Don't even get me started on pagionation. That would probably be a nightmare if it crosses buckets.
PK = topic#date and SK = postId#addedDateTime
So my question is that how to store and query unbound list of items in "DynamoDB way"?
I think you've got a good understanding about your options.
I can't profess to know the One True Way™ to solve this particular problem in DynamoDB, but I'll throw out a few thoughts for the sake of discussion.
While it's easy to get a single post, you can't effectively query a list of posts without a scan.
This would definitely be the case if your Primary Key consists solely of the postId (I'll use POST#<postId> to make it easier to read). That table would look something like this:
This would be super efficient for the 'fetch post details view (aka fetch post by ID)" access pattern. However, we haven't built-in any way to access a group of Posts by topic. Let's give that a shot next.
There are a few ways to model the one-to-many relationship between Posts and topics. The first thing that comes to mind is creating a secondary index on the topic field. Logically, that would look like this:
Now we can get an item collection of Posts by topic using the efficient query operation. Pagination will help you if your number of Posts per topic grows larger. This may be enough for your application. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it creates a hot partition and consider what strategies we can introduce to reduce the problem.
One Option
You said
Store items in buckets, e.g new bucket for each day.
This is a great idea! Let's update our secondary index partition key to be <topic>#<truncated_timestamp> so we can group posts by topic for a given time frame (day/week/month/etc).
I've done a few things here:
Introduced two new attributes to represent the secondary index PK and SK (GSIPK and GSISK respectively).
Introduced a truncated timestamp into the partition key to represent a given month. For example, POST#1 and POST#2 both have a posted_at timestamp in September. I truncated both of those timestamps to 2020-09-01 to represent the entire month of September (or whatever time boundary that makes sense for your application).
This will help distribute your data across partitions, reducing the hot key issue. As you correctly note, this will increase the complexity of your application logic and increase latency since you may need to make multiple requests to retrieve enough results for your applications needs. However, this might be a reasonable trade off in this situation. If the increased latency is a problem, you could pre-populate a partition to contain the results of the prior N months worth of a topic discussion (e.g. PK = TOPIC_CACHE#<topic> with a list attribute that contains a list of postIds from the prior N months).
If the TOPIC_CACHE ends up being a hot partition, you could always shard the partition using calculated suffix:
Your application could randomly select a TOPIC_CACHE between 1..N when retrieving the topic cache.
There are numerous ways to approach this access pattern, and these options represent only a few possibilities. If it were my application, I would start by creating a secondary index using the Post topic as the partition key. It's the easiest to implement and would give me an opportunity to see how my application access patterns performed in a production environment. If the hot key issue started to become a problem, I'd dive deeper into some sort of caching solution.
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.
Official recommendation from the team is, to my knowledge, to put all datatypes into single collection that have something like type=someType field on documents to distinguish types.
Now, if we assume large databases with partitioning where different object types can be:
Completely different fields (so no common field for partitioning)
Related (through reference)
How to organize things so that things that should go together end up in same partition?
For example, lets say we have:
User
BlogPost
BlogPostComment
If we store them as separate types with type=user|blogPost|blogPostComment, in same collection, how do we ensure that user, his blogposts and all the corresponding comments end up in same partition?
Is there some best practice for this?
[UPDATE]
Can you ever avoid cross-partition queries completely? Should that be a goal? Or you just try to minimize them?
For example, you can partition your data perfectly for 99% of cases/queries but then you need some dashboard to show aggregates from all-the-data. Is that something you just accept as inevitable and try to minimize or is it possible to avoid it completely?
I've written about this somewhat extensively in other similar questions regarding Cosmos.
Basically, when dealing with many different logical entity types in a single Cosmos collection the easiest option is to put a generic (or abstract, as you refer to it) partition key on all your documents. At this point it's the concern of the application to make sure that at runtime the appropriate value is chosen. I usually name this document property either partitionKey, routingKey or something similar.
This is extremely important when designing for optimal query efficiency as your choice of partition keys can have a huge impact on query and throughput performance. A generic key like this lets you design the optimal storage of your data as it benefits whatever application you're building.
Even something like tenant does not make sense as different tenants might have wildly different data size and access patterns. Instead you could include the tenantId at runtime as part of your partition key as a kind of composite.
UPDATE:
For certain query patterns it might be possible to serve them entirely out of a single partition. It's definitely not the end of the world if things end up going cross partition though. The system is still quick. If possible, limiting the amount of partitions that need to be touched for a given query is ideal but you're never going to get away from it 100% of the time.
A partition should hold data related to a group that is expected to grow, for instance a Tenant which will group many documents (which can be of different types as you have mentioned) So the Partition Key in this instance should be the TenantId. The partitioning is more about the data relating to a group than the type of data. If the data is related to a User then you could use the UserId, however many users may comment on the same posts so it doesn't seem like a good candidate for a partition key unless there is some de-normalization of the user info so it doest have to relate back to the other users directly.. if that makes sense?
So I have a question about designing a datastore database, I'm using objectify. I'm trying to get optimal performance.
So I need to create two entities, List and Listings, with a relationship. There will be 500,000 listings in all and 50,000 per list.
Looking at this https://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/IntroductionToObjectify#Multi-Value_Relationship
I see there are three methods to store relationship.
One to one, many to one and Multi-value relationship.
The Multi-Value relationship looks like it would work great but appears to have a limit of 5,000 entries per entity(List?)
So I assume I should use the many to one method but I question the performance on this as I would have to query every listing and filter.
Can I have good performance doing what I'm attempting with datastore?
Any help at all would be great!
Multi-value relationship in that case has no a good performance because each value implies a new line on its field index. It means longer write times. Also it has a limit of entries. It's useful when you have a few values to store.
There is another type of relationship: entity group.
The criteria to choose between each method also depends on the type of queries you do and the frequency of updating entities.
In base of the information you provide, I recommend many-to-one relationship.
While using Graph Databases(my case Neo4j), we can represent the same information many ways. Making each entity a Node and connecting all entities through relationships or just adding the entities to attribute list of a Node.diff
Following are two different representations of the same data.
Overall, which mechanism is suitable in which conditions?
My use case involves traversing the Database from different nodes until 4 depths and examining the information through connected nodes or attributes (based on which approach it is).
One query of interest may be, "Who are the friends of John who went to Stanford?"
What is the difference in terms of Storage, computations
Normally,
properties are loaded lazily, and are more expensive to hold in cache, especially strings. Nodes and Relationships are most effective for traversal, especially since the relationships types are stored together with the relatoinship records and thus don't trigger property loads when used in traversals.
Also, a balanced graph (that is, not many dense nodes with over say 10K relationships) is most effective to traverse.
I would try to model most of the reoccurring proeprties as nodes connecting to the entities, thus using the graph itself to index on these values, instead of having to revert to filter on property values or index the property with an expensive index lookup.
The first one is much better since you're querying on entities such as Stanford- and that entity is related to many person nodes. My opinion that modeling as nodes is more intuitive and easier to query on. "Find all persons who went to Stanford" would not be very easy to do in your second model as you don't have a place to start traversing from.
I'd use attributes mainly to describe the node/entity use them to filter results from the query e.g. Who are friends of John who went to Stanford in the year 2010. In this case, the year attribute would just be used to trim the results. Depends on your use case- if year is really important and drives a lot of queries or is used to represent a timeline, you could even model the year as a node attached to Stanford.