I have an aggerate data model (think a Customer entity with Widgets that belong to them as a list of embedded entities).
When I search for customers (e.g DocumentDBRepository.GetItemsAsync) That will be hydrating the customer data model along with the widgets for each. For efficiency reasons, I don’t really need the customer search to consider the widgets.
Are there any strategies for this in document dbs (such as a “LiteCustomer” entity)? I suspect not as that is just the nature of the “schema-less” data I’ve told it to store in the first place, but interested to hear thoughts.
Is this simply a ‘non issue’?
First, disclaimer: data modeling is hard. There are many nuances and a SO question can never cover entire business and everything left unsaid in both Q and A. There's no silver bullets. Regardless..
"LiteCustomer"
Perfectly fine to have such model in your client code. Your main Customer model may and will have many representations, most of them simple subsets of full model. Similarly to relational sql, select only what you need. Don't fetch data to client which you don't need.
The SQL API provides quite cool SQL tools to compose json for return documents for you.
physical storage model may differ from domain model
Consider your usage scenarios. If many scenarios happen to work with customer without widgets (or vice versa) then consider having widgets as separate document(s) in storage model.
In DocDB, the question is often not so much in querying logic but what your application expects on modification logic. Querying which is indexed is fast and every sql query can easily do transformations (though cross-doc joining is troublesome). For C(R)UD - you have less options - it's always by full document. Having too large documents will end up with higher RU costs and complex code.
Questions to consider:
How often customer changes without widget count/details changing?
How often widgets change without customer changing?
Do widgets on customer change independently or always as a set?
When do you need transactional updates on customer+widget changes?
How would queries look like? Can they be indexed?
Test.
True, changing model later is cumbersome in DocDB, but don't try to fix something before you know it's broken. If you are not sure you have an issue or not, then most likely fixing the maybe-issue is costlier than not fixing it.
If in doubt, generate loads of data and test it out.
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.
Does GSI Overloading provide any performance benefits, e.g. by allowing cached partition keys to be more efficiently routed? Or is it mostly about preventing you from running out of GSIs? Or maybe opening up other query patterns that might not be so immediately obvious.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-gsi-overloading.html
e.g. I you have a base table and you want to partition it so you can query a specific attribute (which becomes the PK of the GSI) over two dimensions, does it make any difference if you create 1 overloaded GSI, or 2 non-overloaded GSIs.
For an example of what I'm referring to see the attached image:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsI50oUOFIx-CFp7zcYMij7KQc5hJGIa/view?usp=sharing
The base table has documents which can be in a published or draft state. Each document is owned by a single user. I want to be able to query by user to find:
Published documents by date
Draft documents by date
I'm asking in relation to the more recent DynamoDB best practice that implies that all applications only require one table. Some of the techniques being shown in this documentation show how a reasonably complex relational model can be squashed into 1 DynamoDB table and 2 GSIs and yet still support 10-15 query patterns.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-relational-modeling.html
I'm trying to understand why someone would go down this route as it seems incredibly complicated.
The idea – in a nutshell – is to not have the overhead of doing joins on the database layer or having to go back to the database to effectively try to do the join on the application layer. By having the data sliced already in the format that your application requires, all you really need to do is basically do one select * from table where x = y call which returns multiple entities in one call (in your example that could be Users and Documents). This means that it will be extremely efficient and scalable on the db level. But also means that you'll be less flexible as you need to know the access patterns in advance and model your data accordingly.
See Rick Houlihan's excellent talk on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaEPXoXVf2k for why you'd want to do this.
I don't think it has any performance benefits, at least none that's not called out – which makes sense since it's the same query and storage engine.
That being said, I think there are some practical reasons for why you'd want to go with a single table as it allows you to keep your infrastructure somewhat simple: you don't have to keep track of metrics and/or provisioning settings for separate tables.
My opinion would be cost of storage and provisioned throughput.
Apart from that not sure with new limit of 20
I have seen videos and read the documentation of Cloud firestore, from Google Firebase service, but I can't figure this out coming from realtime database.
I have this web app in mind in which I want to store my providers from different category of products. I want perform a search query through all my products to find what providers I have for such product, and eventually access that provider info.
I am planning to use this structure for this purpose:
Providers ( Collection )
Provider 1 ( Document )
Name
City
Categories
Provider 2
Name
City
Products ( Collection )
Product 1 ( Document )
Name
Description
Category
Provider ID
Product 2
Name
Description
Category
Provider ID
So my question is, is this approach the right way to access the provider info once I get the product I want?
I know this is possible in the realtime database, using the provider ID I could search for that provider in the providers section, but with Firestore I am not sure if its possible or if this is right approach.
What is the correct way to structure this kind of data in Firestore?
You need to know that there is no "perfect", "the best" or "the correct" solution for structuring a Cloud Firestore database. The best and correct solution is the solution that fits your needs and makes your job easier. Bear also in mind that there is also no single "correct data structure" in the world of NoSQL databases. All data is modeled to allow the use-cases that your app requires. This means that what works for one app, may be insufficient for another app. So there is not a correct solution for everyone. An effective structure for a NoSQL type database is entirely dependent on how you intend to query it.
The way you are structuring your data looks good to me. In general, there are two ways in which you can achieve the same thing. The first one would be to keep a reference of the provider in the product object (as you already do) or to copy the entire provider object within the product document. This last technique is called denormalization and is a quite common practice when it comes to Firebase. So we often duplicate data in NoSQL databases, to suit queries that may not be possible otherwise. For a better understanding, I recommend you see this video, Denormalization is normal with the Firebase Database. It's for Firebase Realtime Database but the same principles apply to Cloud Firestore.
Also, when you are duplicating data, there is one thing that needs to keep in mind. In the same way, you are adding data, you need to maintain it. In other words, if you want to update/delete a provider object, you need to do it in every place that it exists.
You might wonder now, which technique is best. In a very general sense, the best way in which you can store references or duplicate data in a NoSQL database is completely dependent on your project's requirements.
So you should ask yourself some questions about the data you want to duplicate or simply keep it as references:
Is the static or will it change over time?
If it does, do you need to update every duplicated instance of the data so they all stay in sync? This is what I have also mentioned earlier.
When it comes to Firestore, are you optimizing for performance or cost?
If your duplicated data needs to change and stay in sync in the same time, then you might have a hard time in the future keeping all those duplicates up to date. This will also might imply you spend a lot of money keeping all those documents fresh, as it will require a read and write for each document for each change. In this case, holding only references will be the winning variant.
In this kind of approach, you write very little duplicated data (pretty much just the Provider ID). So that means that your code for writing this data is going to be quite simple and quite fast. But when reading the data, you will need to load the data from both collections, which means an extra database call. This typically isn't a big performance issue for reasonable numbers of documents, but definitely does require more code and more API calls.
If you need your queries to be very fast, you may want to prefer to duplicate more data so that the client only has to read one document per item queried, rather than multiple documents. But you may also be able to depend on local client caches makes this cheaper, depending on the data the client has to read.
In this approach, you duplicate all data for a provider for each product document. This means that the code to write this data is more complex, and you're definitely storing more data, one more provider object for each product document. And you'll need to figure out if and how to keep up to date on each document. But on the other hand, reading a product document now gives you all information about the provider document in one read.
This is a common consideration in NoSQL databases: you'll often have to consider write performance and disk storage vs. reading performance and scalability.
For your choice of whether or not to duplicate some data, it is highly dependent on your data and its characteristics. You will have to think that through on a case-by-case basis.
So in the end, remember that both are valid approaches, and neither of them is pertinently better than the other. It all depends on what your use-cases are and how comfortable you are with this new technique of duplicating data. Data duplication is the key to faster reads, not just in Cloud Firestore or Firebase Realtime Database but in general. Any time you add the same data to a different location, you're duplicating data in favor of faster read performance. Unfortunately in return, you have a more complex update and higher storage/memory usage. But you need to note that extra calls in Firebase real-time database, are not expensive, in Firestore are. How much duplication data versus extra database calls is optimal for you, depends on your needs and your willingness to let go of the "Single Point of Definition mindset", which can be called very subjective.
After finishing a few Firebase projects, I find that my reading code gets drastically simpler if I duplicate data. But of course, the writing code gets more complex at the same time. It's a trade-off between these two and your needs that determines the optimal solution for your app. Furthermore, to be even more precise you can also measure what is happening in your app using the existing tools and decide accordingly. I know that is not a concrete recommendation but that's software development. Everything is about measuring things.
Remember also, that some database structures are easier to be protected with some security rules. So try to find a schema that can be easily secured using Cloud Firestore Security Rules.
Please also take a look at my answer from this post where I have explained more about collections, maps and arrays in Firestore.
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?
What are the pros/cons of de-normalizing an enterprise application database because it will make writing reports easier?
Pro - designing reports in SSRS will probably be "easier" since no joins will be necessary.
Con - developing/maintaining the app to handle de-normalized data will become more difficult due to duplication of data and synchronization.
Others?
Denormalization for the sake of reports is Bad, m'kay.
Creating views, or a denormalized data warehouse is good.
Views have solved most of my reporting related needs. Data warehouses are great when users will be generating reports almost constantly or when your views start to slow down.
This is why you want to normalize your database
To free the collection of relations from undesirable insertion, update and deletion dependencies;
To reduce the need for restructuring the collection of relations as new types of data are introduced, and thus increase the life span of application programs;
To make the relational model more informative to users;
To make the collection of relations neutral to the query statistics, where these statistics are liable to change as time goes by.
—E.F. Codd, "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model" via wikipedia
The only time you should consider de-normaliozation is when the time it takes the report to generate is not acceptable. De-normalization will cause consistentcy issues that are sometimes impossible to determine especially in large datasets
Don't denormalize just to get rid of complexity in reporting, it can cause huge problems in the rest of the application. Either you don't enforce the rules resulting in bad data or if you do then inserts, deletes and updates can be seriously slowed for everyone not just the two or three people who run reports.
If the reports truly can't run well, then create a data warehouse that is denormalized and populate it in a nightly or weekly feed. The kind of reports that typically need this do not generally care if the data is up-to-the minute as they are usually monthly, quarterly, or annual reports that process (and especially aggregate) large amounts of data after the fact.
You can do both... let the normalized database for applications.
Then create a denormalized database for reports, and create an application which regulary copy data from one database to the other.
After all, reports don't always need to have the latest updated data, most of the time you can easily launch an update every 1 hour on the reporting database, and only once a day day.
Beyond the data warehouse and views solutions provided in other answers, which are good in some ways, if you are willing to sacrifice some performance to get a good to the last second data, but still want a normalized database, you could use on Oracle a Materialized View with fast refresh on commit, or in Sql Server, you could use clustered indexes for a view.
Another Con is that the data is likely not to be real-time as there is some time moving around the data to go from a normalized form to a de-normalized. If someone wants the report to be up to the very second it was requested, that can be tough to do in this situation.
If this is a duplication of the synchronization in the original post, sorry I didn't quite see it that way.