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.
Related
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.
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.
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?
I've been playing around with Amazon DynamoDB and looking through their examples but I think I'm still slightly confused by the example. I've created the example data on a local dynamodb instance to get used to querying data etc. The sample data sets up 3 tables of 'Forum'->'Thread'->'Reply'
Now if I'm in a specific forum, the thread table has a ForumName key I can query against to return relevant threads, but would the very top level (displaying the forums) always have to be a scan operation?
From what I can gather the only way to "select *" in dynamodb is to use a scan and I assume in this instance - where forum is very high level and might have a relatively small number of rows - that it wouldn't be that expensive or are you actually better creating a hash and range key and using that to query this table? I'm not sure what the range key would be in this instance, maybe just a number and then specify in the query that the value has to be > 0? Or perhaps a date it was created and the query always uses a constant date in the past?
I did try a sample query on the 'Forum' table example data using a ComparisonOperator of 'GE' (Greater than or equal) with an attribute value list of 'S'=>'a' but this states that any conditions on the hash key must be of type EQ which implies I couldn't do the above as I would always need to know my 'Name' values upfront
Maybe I'm still struggling having come from an RDBS background especially seen as there are many forum examples out there.
thanks
I think using Scan to get all the forums is fine. I think it is very efficient because it will not return you anything that you don't need (all of the work that scan does is necessary). Also since Scan operation is so simple it is easier to implement and more likely to be efficient
I'm designing an application where my Order objects need to have a sequential and user-friendly Id field. I'm avoiding the HiLo algorithm because of the rather large gaps it produces (see here). Naturally, Guid values would make my corporate users go bananas. I'm also avoiding Oracle sequences because of the major disadvantages of it:
(From: NHibernate POID Generators revealed)
Post insert generators, as the name
suggest, assigns the id’s after the
entity is stored in the database. A
select statement is executed against
database. They have many drawbacks,
and in my opinion they must be used
only on brownfield projects. Those
generators are what WE DO NOT SUGGEST
as NH Team.
> Some of the drawbacks are the
following:
Unit Of Work is broken with the use of
those strategies. It doesn’t matter if
you’re using FlushMode.Commit, each
Save results in an insert statement
against DB. As a best practice, we
should defer insertions to the commit,
but using a post insert generator
makes it commit on save (which is what
UoW doesn’t do).
Those strategies
nullify batcher, you can’t take the
advantage of sending multiple queries
at once(as it must go to database at
the time of Save).
Any ideas/experience on implementing user-friendly IDs without major gaps between them?
Edit:
User friendly Id fields are ones my corporate users can memorize and even discuss and/or have phone conversations talking about a particular Order by its code, e.g. "I'm calling to know why the order #1625 was denied.".
The Id doesn't need to be strictly gapless, but I am worried that my users would get confused when they see gaps like 100, 201, 305. For my older projects, I currently implement NHibernate using Oracle sequences which occasionally lose a few sequences when exceptions are thrown, but yet keep a rather tidy order to them. The downside to them is how they break the Unit of Work which results in additional hits to the database for every Save command with or without the Session.Flush.
One option would be to keep a key-table that simply stores an incrementing value. This can introduce a few problems, namely possible locking issues as well as additional hits to the database.
Another option might be to refine what you mean by "User-friendly Id". This could consist of a combination of a Date/Time and a customer-specific sequence (or including the customer id as well). Also, your order id does not necessarily have to be the actual key on the table. There is nothing to say that you can't use a surrogate key with a separate "calculated" column which represents the order id.
The bottom-line is that it sounds like you want to use a surrogate key, but have the benefits of a natural key. It can be very difficult to have it both ways and a lot comes down to how you actually plan on using the data, how users interpret the data, and personal preference.