I'd like to list records from my DDB table ordered by creation date.
My table has an attribute DateCreated.
All examples I can find describe ordering within some partition.
But I want global ordering.
Am I supposed to create an artificial attribute which will have the same value across all records, just to use it as a partition key? E.g. add new attribute GlobalPartition with value 1 to every record in the table, and create a GSI with partition key GlobalPartition and sort key DateCreated. Isn't there a better way?
Thx!
As you noticed, DynamoDB indeed does not have an option to sort items "globally". In other words, there is no way to Scan the database in sorted partition-key order. You can only sort items inside one partition, sorted by the "sort key".
When you have a small amount of data, you can indeed do what you said: Have a single partition with everything in this partition. However it's not clear how practical this approach becomes as your single partition grows - to gigabytes or terabytes, and how well DynamoDB can load-balance when you have just a single partition (I never saw any DynamoDB documentation which answer this question).
So another option is not to have a single partition but rather have a number of them. For example, consider that you want to sort items by date. Now insead of having a single partition, have a partition per month, i.e., the partition key is the month number. Now, if you want to sort everything within a month, you can do it directly, but if you want to get a sorted list of a full year, you need to Query twelve partitions, in order, getting a sorted list in each one and combining it to a sorted list for the full year. So-called time-series databases are often modeled this way.
If you want to sort any data in DynamoDB you need to add Sort Key index on that attribute. If value is not in attribute which maps to tables' sort key, or table does not have sort key, then you need to create GSI and put GSI's sort key on that attribute. You can use LSI too. Any attribute, which maps to "Sort Key" of any index. Table, LSI, GSI.
Check for more details "ScanIndexForward" param of the query request.
If ScanIndexForward is true, DynamoDB returns the results in the order in which they are stored (by sort key value). This is the default behavior. If ScanIndexForward is false, DynamoDB reads the results in reverse order by sort key value, and then returns the results to the client.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReference/API_Query.html#API_Query_RequestSyntax
UI has checkbox too for this:
"Global sort" is not possible, while "global" would mean scan operation and it just runs through all rows in database and filters by filters, yet it does not have sorting option. On query on attribute mapped to sort key has ScanIndexForward option to change sort direction.
Related
I need to get the rows by key (e.g. where status is "Active") but with sorting on multiple columns.
I'm using the pagination that's why I cannot sort the result after fetching it from the DynamoDB. (Just for the information, I'm using the serverless framework)
Expected Output is array of rows sorted (ordered) by multiple columns.
In DynamoDB you get "free" lexicographical sorting on the range keys.
When an item is being inserted first its partition is calculated based on the partition key then the item is inserted into a b-tree which keeps the partition lexicographically sorted at all times. This doesn't give you all of the features of SQLs Order By, which is not supported
So if your sort keys look something like this
Status#Active#UserId#0000004
You can do "begins_with" query with SK = "Status#Active"
This will give you all of the items that are in active status ordered by the UserId (that has to be zero-padded in order to enforce the lexicographical order).
You can't do that. Sorting can be only done on SK under the same PK. You could combine multiple columns into one value and query based on it. Something like column1-value1#column2-value2.
In that case you'll probably have issue in updating that field, dynamodb streams could help with it. You can trigger event on any modification and asynchronously update that sorting field.
I'm trying to query DynamoDB and get a result similar to select distinct(address) from ... in SQL.
I know DynamoDB is a document-oriented DB and maybe I need to change the data structure.
I'm trying to avoid getting all the data first and filtering later.
My data looks like this:
Attribute
Datatype
ID
String
Var1
Map
VarN
Map
Address
String
So I want to get the distinct addresses in the entire table.
How it's the best way to do it?
Unfortunately, no. You'll need to Scan the entire table (you can use the ProjectionExpression or AttributesToGet options to ask just for the "Address" attribute, but anyway you'll pay for scanning the entire contents of the table).
If you need to do this scan often, you can add a secondary-index which projects only the keys and the "Address" attribute, to make it cheaper to scan. But unfortunately, using a GSI whose partition key is the "Address" does not give you an ability to eliminate duplicates: Each partition will still contain a list of duplicate items, and unfortunately there is no way to just listing the different partition keys in an index - Scaning the index will give you the same partition key multiple times, as many items there are in this partition.
As primary key I have an id for a recipe and the sort key is the type of food (breakfast, meal, snack, etc).
Is there a way with scan or query to get all the items with a given sort key?
As others have pointed in the comments, you can't query a sort key in the sense that there is no operation that gives a list of items that have the same sort key.
In fact, the whole reason for a sort key is generally to order items in a particular partition.
Putting the two together, what you need is a way to partition the items by the food type and then query on that. Enter the Global Secondary Index (GSI).
With the help of a GSI you can index the data in your table in a way that the food type becomes the partition key, and some other attribute becomes the sort key. Then, getting all the items that match a particular food type becomes possible with a Query.
There are a few things to keep in mind:
a GSI is like another table: it consumes capacity that you will be charged for
a GSI is eventually consistent, meaning changes in the table could take a bit of time before being reflected in the GSI
if you end up creating a GSI where the choice of partition key results in very large partitions, it can lead to throttling (reduced throughput) if any one partition receives a lot of requests
Some more guidelines: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/bp-indexes-general.html
But before you start creating GSIs, consider for a moment the schema of your table: your choice of partition key seems less than ideal. On the one hand, using the recipe id as the partition key is great because it probably results in very good spread of data but on the other hand, you have no ability to use queries on your table without creating GSIs.
Instead of recipe id as the partition key, consider creating a partition key composed of food type, and perhaps another attribute. This way, you can actually query on food type, or perhaps issue several queries to retrieve all items of a particular food type.
Imagine that you need to persist something that can be represented with following schema:
{
type: String
createdDate: String (ISO-8601 date)
userId: Number
data: {
reference: Number,
...
}
}
type and createdDate are always defined/required, everything else such as userId, data and whatever fields within data are optional. Combination of type and createdDate does not guarantee any uniqueness. Number of fields within data (when data exists) may differ.
Now imagine that you need to query against this structure like:
Give me items where type is equal to something
Give me items where userId is equal to something
Give me items where type AND userId are equal to something
Give me items where userId AND data.reference are equal to something
Give me items where userId is equal to something, where type IS IN range of values and where data.reference is equal to something
As it seems to me HashKey needs to be introduced on table level to uniquely match the item. Only choice that i have is to use something like UUID generator. Based on that i can't query anything from table that i need described above. So i need to create several global secondary indexes to cover all fifth cases above as follows:
For first use case i could create GSI where type can be HashKey and createdDate can be RangeKey.What bothers me from start here as i mentioned, there is high chance for this composite key to NOT be unique.
For second use case i could crate GSI where userId can be HashKey and createdDate can be RangeKey
Here probably this composite key can match item uniquely.
For third use case, i have probably two solutions. Either to create third GSI where type can be HashKey and userId can be RangeKey. With that approach i'm losing ability to sort returned data and again same worries, this composite key does not guarantee uniqueness. Another approach would be to use one of two previous GSIs and using FilterExpression, right?
For fourth use case i have only one option. To use previous GSI with userId as HashKey and createdDate as a RangeKey and to use FilterExpression against data.reference. Index can't be created on fields from nested object right?
For fifth use case, because IN operator is only supported via FilterExpression (right?) only option again is to use GSI with userId as HashKey and createdDate as a RangeKey and to use FilterExpression for both type and data.reference?
So as only bright side of this problem i see using GSI with userId as HashKey and createdDate as RangeKey. But again userId is not mandatory field it can be NULL. HashKey can't be NULL right?
Most importantly, if composite key(HashKey and RangeKey) can't guarantee uniqueness that means that saving item with composite key that already exists in index will silently rewrite previous item which means i will lose the data?
The thing about DynamoDB: it is a no-SQL database. On the plus side, it is easy to dump pretty much anything into it so long as you have a unique index and it will be fairly efficiently stored for retrieve if you have a good partition key that sub-divides your data into chunks. On the downside, any query you do against fields that are not the partition key or index (primary or secondary) are slow table scans by definition. DynamoDB is not an SQL database and cannot give SQL-like performance when filtering non-indexed columns. If the performance you see is going to be reasonable, you need to delimit your query results to pre-calculated index values available before doing a query or you need to know the results you are looking for are delimited to a few partition keys.
First let's consider the delimited partition keys route. Once you have delimited the partition keys as much as you can and there are no more indexes to reference, everything else you ask DynamoDB is not really a query, but a table scan. You can ask DynamoDB to do it for you, but you may well be better off taking the full results from a partition key or index query and doing the filter yourself in whatever language you are using. I use Java for this purpose because it is simple to do a query for the keys I need through the Java->DynamoDB API and easy to then filter the results in Java. If this is interesting to you I can put together some simple examples.
If you go the index and filter route, understand that the hash key is still a partition key for the index, which is going to determine how much the GSI can be used in parallel. The bigger your DynamoDB table becomes and the more time sensitive your queries are, the bigger the issue this will become.
So yes, you can make the queries you want with indexes, though it will take some careful planning of those indexes.
1. For first use case i could create GSI where type can be HashKey and
createdDate can be RangeKey.What bothers me from start here as i
mentioned, there is high chance for this composite key to NOT be
unique.
GSI's do not have to be unique. You will receive multiple rows on a query, but nothing will be broken from DynamoDB's perspective. However, if you use type as your partition key (HashKey), the performance of this query will likely be poor unless you have few records for each of your type values.
2. For second use case i could crate GSI where userId can be HashKey and
createdDate can be RangeKey Here probably this composite key can match item
uniquely.
No problems here so long as your userId's will be unique on a given day.
3. For third use case, i have probably two solutions. Either to create third
GSI where type can be HashKey and userId can be RangeKey. With that approach
i'm losing ability to sort returned data and again same worries, this
composite key does not guarantee uniqueness. Another approach would be to
use one of two previous GSIs and using FilterExpression, right?
So the RangeKey is your sort key, at least from DynamoDB's perspective. And yes, if you use a GSI and then Filter, you are table scanning the contents of the GSI indexed rows. But yes, if you are combining two GSI's, you either generate a third index in advance or you filter/scan. DynamoDB has no provisions for doing an INNER JOIN on two indexes. And having type as your partition key and then filtering the results has serious performance issues.
4. For fourth use case i have only one option. To use previous GSI with
userId as HashKey and createdDate as a RangeKey and to use FilterExpression
against data.reference. Index can't be created on fields from nested object
right?
I am not sure about your nested object question, but yes, using the previous GSI with a filter/scan will work.
5. For fifth use case, because IN operator is only supported via
FilterExpression (right?) only option again is to use GSI with userId as
HashKey and createdDate as a RangeKey and to use FilterExpression for both
type and data.reference?
Yes, if you want DynamoDB to do the work for you, this is the way to approach your fifth query. But I go back to my original statement: why do this? If you can create a GSI that efficiently gets you to the records you are interested in, use a GSI. But when I never use filter expressions: I get the full partition, index or GSI results back from a query and do the filtering myself in my programming language of choice.
If you need to do everything in DynamoDB your methods will work, but they may not be very fast depending on how many rows are being filtered. I beat on the performance issue pretty hard because I have seen lots of work go into s database project and then had the whole thing not get used because poor performance made it unusable.
Is there any way to get sorted result out of Dynamodb when using Scan/Query APIs? I know in Query API you can sort by Rangekey and ScanIndexForward which sorts the result ascending if the value is true and descending if false;
+But as far as I understood you can have one range key, so how if I want to sort based on different fields?
+Also if I'm using scan, it seems there is no option to sort the result either!
Any help is appreciated!
For the first question about having only one range key, you can use Local secondary Index. You assign a normal attribute as the range key of the LSI and DynamoDB will sort your rows (with the same hashkey) by comparing that attribute.
So essentially LSI gives you "additional rangeKey". You can create up to 5 LSIs.
See here and here for example of querying LSI. You can treat an Index just like a regular table. You can do query & scan on index (but not put).
For your second question about sorting the rows globally instead of sorting items with the same hashkey, I don't think DynamoDB supports this feature out-of-the-box. You will have to
a) scan and sort the items on your own
b) or create a global secondary index with just one hash key and dump all your items into that hashkey. It is not recommended because this creates a hot partition in GSI.
c) or design your schema to avoid having to sort items globally.