I have decided to implement the following ID strategy for my documents, which combines the document "type" with the ID:
doc.id = "docType_" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("n");
// create document in collection
This results in IDs such as the following for my documents:
usr_19d17037ea7f41a9b20db1a90f71d30d
usr_89fe82c93b264076aa1b6e1fb4813aaf
usr_2aa58c1c970a4c5eaa206a755c1c7bf4
msg_ec43510732ae47a6a5d5f323b7461d68
msg_3b03ceeb7e06490d998c3e368b435851
With a RangeIndex policy in place on the ID, I should be able to query the collection for specific types. For example:
SELECT * FROM c WHERE STARTSWITH(c.id, 'usr_') AND ...
Since this is a web application with many different document types, many of my app's queries would implement this STARTSWITH filter by default.
My main concern here is the use of a random GUID string on the ID. I know that in SQL Server I have had issues with index performance and fragmentation while using random GUIDs on the primary key in a clustered index.
Is there a similar concern here? It seems that in DocumentDB, the care of managing indexes has been abstracted away from you. Would a sequential ID be more ideal/performant in any way?
tl;dr: Use separate fields for the type and a GUID-only ID and use hash indexes on both.
This answer is necessarily going to be somewhat opinionated based upon the nature of your questions. Let me first address what appears to be your primary concern, namely the fragmentation of indexes effecting performance.
DocumentDB assumes the use of GUIDs and a hash index (as opposed to a range index) is ideally suited to finding the one matching entity by GUID. On the other hand, if you want to find a set of documents by looking at the beginning of the string, I suspect that would probably be more performant with a range index. This assumes that STARTSWITH is only optimized when used with range indexes, but I don't know for a fact that it is optimized even when you have a range index.
My recommendation would be to use separate fields for the type and a GUID-only ID and use hash indexes on both. This gives you the advantage of being assured that queries like the one you show would be highly performant and that queries which combine a type clause with other parameters would also be able to use at least one index. Note, hash indexes of this type (say 2x 3 bytes = 6 bytes/document) are highly space efficient, so don't worry about needed two of them. Those two combined should be much smaller than one range index which needs to have enough precision to cover the entire length of your type+GUID.
Other than the performance and space reasons already discussed, I can see a couple of other disadvantages to combining the type with the GUID: 1) when trying to retrieve a single document (both for direct use and as part of a foreign key lookup), having the GUID separate and using a hash index will be faster and more space efficient than using a range index on the combined field; 2) Combining the type with the ID greatly complicates certain migrations that commonly need to be done at a later date. Let's say that you decide to break your users into authors and readers for example. Users are foreign key referenced in other document types (blog post author, reader comment, etc.) by the user ID. If that ID includes the type, then you would need to not only change the user documents to accomplish the migration but you'd also need to find and change every foreign key. If the two fields (GUID and type) were separate, then you'd only need to change the user documents. Agile software craftsmanship is largely about making decisions that provide flexibility down the road.
As for the use of a sequential index, the trend in databases in general and NoSQL in particular, is that the complexity of providing a monotonically increasing sequential ID is greater than the space-efficiency advantages of that over a GUID. If you are going to stick with DocumentDB, I recommend that you just go with the flow and use GUIDs.
Related
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.
According to docs, the property id is special in Azure CosmosDB documents as it must always be set and have unique value per partition. Also it has additional restrictions on its content :
The following characters are restricted and cannot be used in the Id
property: '/', '\', '?', '#'
Obviously, this field is one of document "keys" (in addition to _rid) and used somehow in internal plumbing. Other than the restrictions above, it is unclear how exactly is this key used internally and more importantly for practitioners,which values constitute technically better ids than others?
Wild guess 1: For example, from some DB worlds, one would prefer short primary key values, since the PK would be included in index entries and shorter keys would allow more compact index for storage and lookup. Would id field length matter at all besides the one-time storage cost?
Wild guess 2: in some systems better throughput is achieved if common prefixes are avoided in names (i.e. azure storage container/blob names) and even suggest to add a small random hash as prefix. Does cosmosDB care about id prefix similarities?
Anything else one should consider?
EDIT: Clarification, I'm interested in what's good for the cosmosDB server storage/execution side, provided my data model is still in design and/or has multiple keys available the data designer can choose from.
First and foremost let's clear something out. The id property is NOT unique. Your collection can have multiple documents that have the exact same id. The id is ONLY unique within it's own logical partition.
That said, based on all the compiled info that we know from documentation and talks it doesn't really matter what value you choose to go with. It is a string and Cosmos DB will treat it as such but it is also considered as a "Primary key" internally so restrictions apply, such as ordering by it.
Where it does matter is in your consuming application's business logic. The id plays a double role of being both a CosmosDB property but also your property. You get to set it. This is the value you are going to use to make direct reads to the database. If you use any other value, then it's no longer a read. It's a query. That makes it more expensive and slower.
A good value to set is the id of the entity that is hosted in this collection. That way you can use the entity's id to read quickly and efficiently.
I am new the noSQL data modelling so please excuse me if my question is trivial. One advise I found in dynamodb is always supply 'PartitionId' while querying otherwise, it will scan the whole table. But there could be cases where we need listing our items, for instance in case of ecom website, where we need to list our products on list page (with pagination).
How should we perform this listing by avoiding scan or using is efficiently?
Basically, there are three ways of reading data from DynamoDB:
GetItem – Retrieves a single item from a table. This is the most efficient way to read a single item, because it provides direct access to the physical location of the item.
Query – Retrieves all of the items that have a specific partition key. Within those items, you can apply a condition to the sort key and retrieve only a subset of the data. Query provides quick, efficient access to the partitions where the data is stored.
Scan – Retrieves all of the items in the specified table. (This operation should not be used with large tables, because it can consume large amounts of system resources.
And that's it. As you see, you should always prefer GetItem (BatchGetItem) to Query, and Query — to Scan.
You could use queries if you add a sort key to your data. I.e. you can use category as a hash key and product name as a sort key, so that the page showing items for a particular category could use querying by that category and product name. But that design is fragile, as you may need other keys for other pages, for example, you may need a vendor + price query if the user looks for a particular mobile phones. Indexes can help here, but they come with their own tradeofs and limitations.
Moreover, filtering by arbitrary expressions is applied after the query / scan operation completes but before you get the results, so you're charged for the whole query / scan. It's literally like filtering the data yourself in the application and not on the database side.
I would say that DynamoDB just is not intended for many kinds of workloads. Probably, it's not suited for your case too. Think of it as of a rich key-value (key to object) store, and not a "classic" RDBMS where indexes come at a lower cost and with less limitations and who provide developers rich querying capabilities.
There is a good article describing potential issues with DynamoDB, take a look. It contains an awesome decision tree that guides you through the DynamoDB argumentation. I'm pasting it here, but please note, that the original author is Forrest Brazeal.
Another article worth reading.
Finally, check out this short answer on SO about DynamoDB usecases and issues.
P.S. There is nothing criminal in doing scans (and I actually do them by schedule once per day in one of my projects), but that's an exceptional case and I regret about the decision to use DynamoDB in that case. It's not efficient in terms of speed, money, support and "dirtiness". I had to increase the capacity before the job and reduce it after, but that's another story…
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'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.