Is it possible to modify the Rangekey column after table creation. Such as adding new column/attribute and assigning as RangeKey for the table. Tried searching but cant ble to find any articles about changing the Range or Hash key
No, unfortunately it's not possible to change the hash key, range key, or indexes after a table is created in DynamoDB. The DynamoDB UpdateItem API Documentation is clear about the fact that indexes cannot be modified. I can't find a reference to anywhere in the docs that explicitly states that the table keys cannot be modified, but at present they cannot be changed.
Note that DynamoDB is schema-less other than the hash and range key, and you can add other attributes to new items with no problems. Unfortunately, if you need to modify either your hash key or range key, you'll have to make a new table and migrate the data.
Edit (January 2014): DynamoDB now has support for on the fly global secondary indexes
To change or create an additional sort key, you will need to create a new table and migrate over to it, as both actions cannot be done on existing tables.
DynamoDB streams enable us to migrate tables without any downtime. I've done this to great effective, and the steps I've followed are:
Create a new table (let us call this NewTable), with the desired key structure, LSIs, GSIs.
Enable DynamoDB Streams on the original table
Associate a Lambda to the Stream, which pushes the record into NewTable. (This Lambda should trim off the migration flag in Step 5)
[Optional] Create a GSI on the original table to speed up scanning items. Ensure this GSI only has attributes: Primary Key, and Migrated (See Step 5).
Scan the GSI created in the previous step (or entire table) and use the following Filter:
FilterExpression = "attribute_not_exists(Migrated)"
Update each item in the table with a migrate flag (ie: “Migrated”: { “S”: “0” }, which sends it to the DynamoDB Streams (using UpdateItem API, to ensure no data loss occurs).
NOTE: You may want to increase write capacity units on the table during the updates.
The Lambda will pick up all items, trim off the Migrated flag and push it into NewTable.
Once all items have been migrated, repoint the code to the new table
Remove original table, and Lambda function once happy all is good.
Following these steps should ensure you have no data loss and no downtime.
I've documented this on my blog, with code to assist:
https://www.abhayachauhan.com/2018/01/dynamodb-changing-table-schema/
Related
I have a DynamoDB table:
How shoul I filter entried in DB table where all keys are: access.role = "ADMIN"?
You would be best served by setting up an Global Index (GSI). You set the Partition Key equal to that attribute, and the Sort Key equal to some other attribute that you can guarantee will be unique. Then you use your SDK of choice or the Query option in the console, select the index, and query for partion_key = ADMIN
However. Be aware. Index's are a complete replication of the table. Dynamo is very good at this and relatively fast at doing so, but there is still the possibility that your index will be out of sync with the actual data. If you are not making the call against the index very often you are pretty much fine. If you are calling it very often, then you should restructure your table.
Dynamo is not an SQL. When setting up a dynamo schema you have to consider how you will access your data. your Access Patterns. You should design your data with your Partition Key as the data you will have when looking up (Ie: i always will have a user ID number) and your sort keys as the individual documents related to that PK (ie: a user has a document that is his profile data, a document that is his profile picture url, a document that is a list of his friends user numbers, a document that is ... ect)
Then you use Indexs for things like your question that you wont be doing very often.
A bit of context: I am trying to build an inventory to list my AWS resources in various accounts and I am planning to use DynamoDB to store the data. These will be the columns for my table: ResourceARN, ResourceName, ResourceType, StandardTag, IsDeleted, LastUpdateTime and ResourceCreationDate ( this field is available only for a few resource types like Ec2).
Question: I want to query my DDB table using account ID, resource type and tag name. I am stumped on choosing the primary key for the table. Since primary key should be unique and has to have 1:many relationship. Hence, I cannot use a combination of resourceType and account Id. Nor can I use resourceArn as my primary key since it is 1:1 relationship. Also, using the resourceARN as the sort key does not make sense to me. I understand that I can use a simple scan operation, but that is very costly and will take time if I add more data in my DDB.
I would appreciate any suggestions or guidance over the same.
Short answer
Partition key: Account ID
Sort key: <resource type>/<resource ID>
Rationale
It's a common pattern for a sort key to be a string concatenating multiple attributes. Since sort keys can be queried by prefix, you can leverage this in your queries:
Get all account resources: query all sort keys on the Account ID partition key
Get all EC2 instances of an account: query with partition key = <your account ID> and sort key begins_with('ec2-instance').
You may notice that ARNs follow such a hierarchy as well (what's probably not a coincidence). This would be effectively using a subset of the ARN as the sort key.
Some notes:
DynamoDB is about attributes as much as about columns. You don't need to include ResourceCreationDate in the records which don't have it, and doing so will save you space (see next point).
Attribute names count as storage for every record, which impacts cost and also throughput. It's common to use shorthand for names for this reason (rct instead of ResourceCreationTime for example).
You can use LSIs (Local Secondary Indexes) to order by creation and update times if you need this.
First of all, I have table structure like this,
Users:{
UserId
Name
Email
SubTable1:[{
Column-111
Column-112
},
{
Column-121
Column-122
}]
SubTable2:[{
Column-211
Column-212
},
{
Column-221
Column-222
}]
}
As I am new to DynamoDB, so I have couple of questions regarding this as follows:
1. Can I create structure like this?
2. Can we set primary key for subtables?
3. Luckily, I found DynamoDB helper class to do some operations into my DB.
https://www.gopiportal.in/2018/12/aws-dynamodb-helper-class-c-and-net-core.html
But, don't know how to fetch only perticular subtable
4. Can we fetch only specific columns from my main table? Also need suggestion for subtables
Note: I am using .net core c# language to communicate with DynamoDB.
Can I create structure like this?
Yes
Can we set primary key for subtables?
No, hash key can be set on top level scalar attributes only (String, Number etc.)
Luckily, I found DynamoDB helper class to do some operations into my DB.
https://www.gopiportal.in/2018/12/aws-dynamodb-helper-class-c-and-net-core.html
But, don't know how to fetch only perticular subtable
When you say subtables, I assume that you are referring to Array datatype in the above sample table. In order to fetch the data from DynamoDB table, you need hash key to use Query API. If you don't have hash key, you can use Scan API which scans the entire table. The Scan API is a costly operation.
GSI (Global Secondary Index) can be created to avoid scan operation. However, it can be created on scalar attributes only. GSI can't be created on Array attribute.
Other option is to redesign the table accordingly to match your Query Access Pattern.
Can we fetch only specific columns from my main table? Also need suggestion for subtables
Yes, you can fetch specific columns using ProjectionExpression. This way you get only the required attributes in the result set
I'm new to AWS DynamoDB and wanted to clarify something. Is it possible to query a table and filter base on a non-primary key attribute. My table looks like the following
Store
Id: PrimaryKey
Name: simple string
Location: simple string
Now I want to query on the Name, but I think I have to give the key as well from what I know? Apart from that I can use the scan but then I will be loading all the data.
From the docs:
The Query operation finds items based on primary key values. You can query any table or secondary index that has a composite primary key (a partition key and a sort key).
DynamoDB requires queries to always use the partition key.
In your case your options are:
create a Global Secondary Index that uses Name as a primary key
use a Scan + Filter if the table is relatively small, or if you expect the result set will include the majority of the records in the table
There are few designs principals that you can follow while you are using DynamoDB. If you are coming from a relational background, you have already witnessed the query limitations from primary key attributes.
Design your tables, for querying and separating hot and cold data.
Create Indexes for Querying from Non Key attributes (You have two options, Global Secondary Index which you can define at any time and Local Secondary Index which you need to specify at table creation time).
With the Global Secondary Index you can promote any NonKey attribute as the Partition Key for the Index and select another attribute for Sort Key for querying. For Local Secondary Index, you can promote any Non Key attribute as the Sort Key keeping the same Partition Key.
Using Indexes for query is important also to improve the efficiency in using provisioned throughput.
Although having indexes consumes the read throughput from the table, it also saves read through put from in a way that, if you project the right amount of attributes to read, it can give a huge benefit in reading. Check the following example.
Lets say you have a DynamoDB table that has items of 40KB. If you read directly from the table to list 10 items, it consumes 100 Read Throughput Units (For one item 10 Units since one unit can read 4KB and multiply it by 10). If you have an index defined just to project the attributes needed to list which will be having 4KB per item, then it will be consuming only 10 Read Throughput Units(One Unit per item) which makes a huge difference in terms of cost.
With DynamoDB its really important how you define Indexes to optimize for Querying not only from Query capability but also in terms of throughput.
You can not query based non-primary key attribute in Dynamo Db.
If you wanted to still do that you can do it using scan query,but scan is costly operation in DyanmoDB and if table is large, then it will affect performance and not recommended because it will scan each item in table and AWS cost you for all item it scan for that query.
There are two ways to achieve it
Keep Store Id as your PrimaryKey/ Partaion key of Dyanmo DB table and add Name/Location as sort Key (only one as Dyanmo DB accept only one Attribute as sort key by design.
Create Global Secondary Indexes for Querying from Non Key attributes which you are more frequenly required.
There are 3 ways to created GSI in Dyanamo DB, In your case select GSI with option INCLUDE and add Name , Location and store ID in Idex.
KEYS_ONLY – Each item in the index consists only of the table partition key and sort key values, plus the index key values. The KEYS_ONLY option results in the smallest possible secondary index.
INCLUDE – In addition to the attributes described in KEYS_ONLY, the secondary index will include other non-key attributes that you specify.
ALL – The secondary index includes all of the attributes from the source table. Because all of the table data is duplicated in the index, an ALL projection results in the largest possible secondary index.
What is the Amazon-recommended way of changing the schema of a large table in a production DynamoDB?
Imagine a hypothetical case where we have a table Person, with primary hash key SSN. This table may contain 10 million items.
Now the news comes that due to the critical volume of identity thefts, the government of this hypothetical country has introduced another personal identification: Unique Personal Identifier, or UPI.
We have to add an UPI column and change the schema of the Person table, so that now the primary hash key is UPI. We want to support for some time both the current system, which uses SSN and the new system, which uses UPI, thus we need both these two columns to co-exist in the Person table.
What is the Amazon-recommended way to do this schema change?
There are a couple of approaches, but first you must understand that you cannot change the schema of an existing table. To get a different schema, you have to create a new table. You may be able to reuse your existing table, but the result would be the same as if you created a different table.
Lazy migration to the same table, without Streams. Every time you modify an entry in the Person table, create a new item in the Person table using UPI and not SSN as the value for the hash key, and delete the old item keyed at SSN. This assumes that UPI draws from a different range of values than SSN. If SSN looks like XXX-XX-XXXX, then as long as UPI has a different number of digits than SSN, then you will never have an overlap.
Lazy migration to the same table, using Streams. When streams becomes generally available, you will be able to turn on a Stream for your Person table. Create a stream with the NEW_AND_OLD_IMAGES stream view type, and whenever you detect a change to an item that adds a UPI to an existing person in the Person table, create a Lambda function that removes the person keyed at SSN and add a person with the same attributes keyed at UPI. This approach has race conditions that can be mitigated by adding an atomic counter-version attribute to the item and conditioning the DeleteItem call on the version attribute.
Preemptive (scripted) migration to a different table, using Streams. Run a script that scans your table and adds a unique UPI to each Person-item in the Person table. Create a stream on Person table with the NEW_AND_OLD_IMAGES stream view type and subscribe a lambda function to that stream that writes all the new Persons in a new Person_UPI table when the lambda function detects that a Person with a UPI was changed or when a Person had a UPI added. Mutations on the base table usually take hundreds of milliseconds to appear in a stream as stream records, so you can do a hot failover to the new Person_UPI table in your application. Reject requests for a few seconds, point your application to the Person_UPI table during that time, and re-enable requests.
DynamoDB streams enable us to migrate tables without any downtime. I've done this to great effective, and the steps I've followed are:
Create a new table (let us call this NewTable), with the desired key structure, LSIs, GSIs.
Enable DynamoDB Streams on the original table
Associate a Lambda to the Stream, which pushes the record into NewTable. (This Lambda should trim off the migration flag in Step 5)
[Optional] Create a GSI on the original table to speed up scanning items. Ensure this GSI only has attributes: Primary Key, and Migrated (See Step 5).
Scan the GSI created in the previous step (or entire table) and use the following Filter:
FilterExpression = "attribute_not_exists(Migrated)"
Update each item in the table with a migrate flag (ie: “Migrated”: { “S”: “0” }, which sends it to the DynamoDB Streams (using UpdateItem API, to ensure no data loss occurs).
NOTE: You may want to increase write capacity units on the table during the updates.
The Lambda will pick up all items, trim off the Migrated flag and push it into NewTable.
Once all items have been migrated, repoint the code to the new table
Remove original table, and Lambda function once happy all is good.
Following these steps should ensure you have no data loss and no downtime.
I've documented this on my blog, with code to assist:
https://www.abhayachauhan.com/2018/01/dynamodb-changing-table-schema/
I'm using a variant of Alexander's third approach. Again, you create a new table that will be updated as the old table is updated. The difference is that you use code in the existing service to write to both tables while you're transitioning instead of using a lambda function. You may have custom persistence code that you don't want to reproduce in a temporary lambda function and it's likely that you'll have to write the service code for this new table anyway. Depending on your architecture, you may even be able to switch to the new table without downtime.
However, the nice part about using a lambda function is that any load introduced by additional writes to the new table would be on the lambda, not the service.
If the changes involve changing the partition key, you can add a new GSI (global secondary index). Moreover, you can always add new columns/attributes to DynamoDB without needing to migrate tables.