Trying to implement multi-region replication for DynamoDB. Very similar to Global Tables, except the major limitations:
need to be able to add more regions along the way.
make this work even when there is data in the tables.
Would want to rely on lambdas dynamo streams and probably event rules for periodic checks. Solution should support writes to either region just like in case with GlobalTables.
I was hoping to get help with algorithm that would ensure that the data is eventually consistent.
In my case amount of data inside tables would be very little.
Thanks!
Related
I'm thinking of re-architecting an RDS model to a DynamoDB one and it appears mostly to be working using a single-table design. We have, however a log table that can contain 5-10 million rows that are queried on many attributes.
Is there any pattern that might be applicable in migrating to DynamoDB or is this a case where full scans would be required and we would just be better off keeping the log stuff as a relational table?
Thanks in advance,
Nik
Those keywords and phrases "log" and "queried on many attributes" sound to me like DynamoDB is not the best solution for your log data. If the number of distinct queries is fairly limited and well-known in advance, you might be able to design your keys to fit your access patterns.
For example, if you commonly query on Color and Quantity attributes, you could design a key like COLOR#Red#QTY#25. And you could use secondary or global secondary indexes for queries involving other attributes similarly.
But it is not a great solution if you have many attributes that you need to query arbitrarily.
Alternative Solution: Another serverless option to consider is storing your log data in S3 and using Athena to query it using SQL.
You will likely be trading away a bit of latency and speed by taking this approach compared to RDS and DynamoDB. But queries against log data often don't need millisecond response times, so it can cover a lot of use cases.
Data modelling for DynamoDB
Write down all of your access patterns, in order of priority/most used
Research models which are similar to your use-case
Download NoSQL Workbench and create test models where you can visualize your ideas
Run commands against DynamoDB Local and test your access patterns are fulfilled.
Access Parterns
Your access patterns will ultimately decide if DynamoDB will suit your needs. If you need to query based on multiple fields you can have up to 20 Global Secondary Indexes which will give you some flexibility, but usually if you exceed 8-10 indexes then DynamoDB may not be a good choice or the schema is badly designed.
Use smart designs with sort-key and index-key overloading, it will allow you to group the data better and make your access patterns more efficient.
Log Data Use-case
Storing log data is a pretty common use-case for DynamoDB and many many AWS customers use it for that sole purpose. But I can't over emphasize the importance of understanding your access patterns and working backwards from those to create your model.
Alternatives
If you require query capability or free text search ability, then you could use DynamoDB integrations with OpenSearch (via Lambda/EventBridge) for example, with OpenSearch providing you the flexibility for your queries.
Doesn't seem like a good use case - I have done it and wasn't at all happy with the result - now I load 'log like' data into elasticsearch and much happier with the result.
In my case, I insert the data to dynamodb - to archive it - but also feed data in ES, but once in a while if I kill my ES cluster, I can reload all or some of the data from ddb.
I am a bit confused if this is possible in DynamoDB.
I will give an example of SQL and explain how the query could be optimized and then I will try to explain why I am confused on how to model this and how to access the same data in DynamoDB.
This is not company code. Just an example I made up based on pcpartpicker filter.
SELECT * FROM BUILDS
WHERE CPU='Intel' AND 'OVERCLOCKED'='true'
AND Price < 3000
AND GPU='GeForce RTX 3060'
AND ...
From my understanding, SQL will first do a scan on the BUILDS table and then filter out all the builds where CPU is using intel. From this subset, it then does another WHERE clause to filter 'OVERCLOCEKD' = true so on and so forth. Basically, all of the additional WHERE clauses have a smaller number of rows to filter.
One thing we can do to speed up this query is to create an index on these columns. The main increase in performance is reducing the initial scan on the whole table for the first clause that the database looks at. So in the example above instead of scanning the whole db to find builds that are using intel it can quickly retrieve them since it is indexed.
How would you model this data in DynamoDB? I know you can create a bunch of secondary Indexes but instead of letting the engine do the WHERE clause and passing along the result to do the next set of filtering. It seems like you would have to do all of this yourself. For example, we would need to use our secondary index to find all the builds that use intel, overclocked, less than 3000, and using a specific GPU and then we would need to find the intersection ourselves. Is there a better way to map out this access pattern? I am having a hard time figuring out if this is even possible.
EDIT:
I know I could also just use a normal filter but it seems like this would be pretty expensive since it basically brute force search through the table similar to the SQL solution without indexing.
To see what I mean from pcpartpicker here is the link to the site with this page: https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/
People basically select multiple filters so it makes designing for access patterns even harder.
I'd highly recommend going through the various AWS presentations on YouTube...
In particular here's a link to The Iron Triangle of Purpose - PIE Theorem chapter of the AWS re:Invent 2018: Building with AWS Databases: Match Your Workload to the Right Database (DAT301) presentation.
DynamoDB provides IE - Infinite Scale and Efficiency.
But you need P - Pattern Flexibility.
You'll need to decide if you need PI or PE.
It's being proposed that we store a data about a relationship between two vertices on the edge between them. The idea would be that these two vertices are related and there are user level pieces of information that are looking to be stored in graph. The best example I can think of would be a Book, and a Reader, and the Reader can store cliff notes on the edges for retrieval later on.
Is this common practice? It seems to me that we should minimize the amount of data living in edges and that a vast majority of GraphDB data be derived data, rather than using it as an actual data store. Given that its in memory, what happens when it goes down? (We're using Neptune so.. there are technically backups).
Sorry if the question is a bit vague, but I'm not sure else how to ask. I've googled around looking for best practices and its all pretty generic data related to the concepts and theories of graph db.
An additional question, is it common practice to expose the gremlin API directly to users, or should there always be a GraphQL (or other) API in front of it?
Without too much additional detail it is hard to provide exact modeling advice , but in general one of the advantages of using a graph databases is that edges are first class citizens and allow for properties on edges. A common use case for this would be something like PERSON - purchases -> Product where you might have a purchase_date on the purchases edge to represent the date of the purchase, as someone might buy the same thing multiple times.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by that a vast majority of GraphDB data be derived data as you can use graphs to derive and infer data/relationships based on the connections but they do fully support storing data in them as well.
Given that its in memory, what happens when it goes down? - Amazon Neptune (and most other DBS) use a buffer cache to store some data in memory, but that data is also persisted to disk, so if the instance goes down, there is no problem with recovering it from the durable storage.
An additional question, is it common practice to expose the gremlin API directly to users, or should there always be a GraphQL (or other) API in front of it? - Just as with any database, I would not recommend exposing the Gremlin API directly to consumers, as doing so comes with a whole host of potential security risks. Generally, the underlying data store of any application should be transparent to the users. They should be interacting with an interface like REST/GraphQL that is designed to answer business related questions and not really know or care that there is a graph database backing those requests.
If each of my database's an overview has only two types (state: pending, appended), is it efficient to designate these two types as partition keys? Or is it effective to index this state value?
It would be more effective to use a sparse index. In your case, you might add an attribute called isPending. You can add this attribute to items that are pending, and remove it once they are appended. If you create a GSI with tid as the hash key and isPending as the sort key, then only items that are pending will be in the GSI.
It will depend on how would you search for these records!
For example, if you will always search by record ID, it never minds. But if you will search every time by the set of records pending, or appended, you should think in use partitions.
You also could research in this Best practice guide from AWS: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/en_us/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/best-practices.html
Updating:
In this section of best practice guide, it recommends the following:
Keep related data together. Research on routing-table optimization
20 years ago found that "locality of reference" was the single most
important factor in speeding up response time: keeping related data
together in one place. This is equally true in NoSQL systems today,
where keeping related data in close proximity has a major impact on
cost and performance. Instead of distributing related data items
across multiple tables, you should keep related items in your NoSQL
system as close together as possible.
As a general rule, you should maintain as few tables as possible in a
DynamoDB application. As emphasized earlier, most well designed
applications require only one table, unless there is a specific reason
for using multiple tables.
Exceptions are cases where high-volume time series data are involved,
or datasets that have very different access patterns—but these are
exceptions. A single table with inverted indexes can usually enable
simple queries to create and retrieve the complex hierarchical data
structures required by your application.
Use sort order. Related items can be grouped together and queried
efficiently if their key design causes them to sort together. This is
an important NoSQL design strategy.
Distribute queries. It is also important that a high volume of
queries not be focused on one part of the database, where they can
exceed I/O capacity. Instead, you should design data keys to
distribute traffic evenly across partitions as much as possible,
avoiding "hot spots."
Use global secondary indexes. By creating specific global secondary
indexes, you can enable different queries than your main table can
support, and that are still fast and relatively inexpensive.
I hope I could help you!
Coming from a relational background, I'm used to being able to write something like:
UPDATE Table Set X = 1 Where Y = 2
However such an operation seems very difficult to accomplish in a db like Dynamodb. Let's say I have already done a query for the items where Y = 2.
The way I see it, with the API provided there are two options:
Do lots and lots of individual update requests, OR
Do a batch write and write ALL of the data back in, with the update applied.
Both of these methods seem terrible, performance-wise.
Am I missing something obvious here? Or are non relational databases not designed to handle 'updates' on this scale - and if so, can I achieve something similar without drastic performance costs?
No, you are not missing anything obvious. Unfortunately those are the only options you have with DynamoDB, with one caveat being that a BatchWrite is only capable of batch submitting 25 update operations at a time so you'll still have to potentially issue multiple BatchWrite requests.
A BatchWrite is more of a convenience that the DynamoDB API offers to help you save on network traffic, reducing the overhead of 25 requests to the overhead of one, but otherwise it's not much savings.
The BatchWrite API is also a bit less flexible than the individual Update and Put item APIs so in some situations it's better to handle the concurrency yourself and just use the underlying operations.
Of course, the best scenario is if you can architect your solution such that you don't need to perform massive updates to a DynamoDB table. Writes are expensive and if you find yourself frequently having to update a large portion of a table, chances are that there is an alternative design that could be employed.