Hi Im trying to query some table in DynamoDB. However from what I read I can only do it using some code or form the CLI. Is there a way to do complex queries from the GUI? I tried playing with it but can't seem to figure out how to do a simple COUNT(*). Please help.
Go to DynamoDB Console;
Select the table that you want to count
Go to "overview" page/tab
In table properties, click on Manage Live Count
Click Start Scan
This will give you the count of items of the table at that moment. Just be warned that this count is eventually consistent; what means that if someone is performing changes in the table at that exact moment your end result will not be exact (but probably very close to reality).
Digressing a little bit (only in case you're new to DynamoDB):
DynamoDB is a NoSQL database. It doesn't support the same commands that are common in SQL databases. Mainly because it doesn't support the same consistency model provided by SQL databases.
In SQL databases, when you send a count(*) query your RDMS make some very educated guesses and take some short paths to discover the number of lines in the table. It does that because reading your entire table to give you this answer would take too much time.
DynamoDB doesn't have means to make these educated guesses. When you want to know how many items one table have the only option it has is to read all of them counting one by one. That is the exact task that the command mentioned in the beginning of this answer does. It scans the entire table counting all the items one by one.
Because of that, when you perform this task it will bill you the entire table read (DynamoDB bills you per reads and writes). And maybe after you started the scan someone put another item in the the table while you are still counting. In that case it will not restart the count because by design DynamoDB is eventually consistent.
Related
I preface all of this to say I’m still actively learning DynamoDB, and I think an answer to my question will help me understand a few things.
I have an analytics microservice that I’m pushing custom (internal) analytics events into a DynamoDB table. Columns in our Dynamo rows/items include data like:
User ID
IP Address
Event Action
Timestamp
Split Test ID
Split Test Value
One of the main questions we want to pull from this db is:
"How many users saw split test x with values y?"
I’m struggling to understand how I should index my database to account for this kind of requests? I set up a “Keys Only” index targeting Split Test ID, and the query to gather these are fairly efficient, but it only pulls UserID and Split Test ID. Ideally I want an efficient query that returns multiple other associated values as well…
How do I achieve this? Do I need to be doing something much differently? Additionally, if any of my understanding of Dynamo, based on my explanations, sounds completely lacking in some regard, please point me in the right direction!
You're thinking of DynamoDB as a schema-less database, which it obviously is. However, that does not mean that a schema is not important. Schemas in NoSQL databases are usually more important than they are in SQL databases and they are usually less straightforward.
The most important thing to determine how you will store your data is how you will access it. You will have to take into account all the ways that you will want to access your data and ensure it is possible by creating the necessary data columns and necessary indexes. In this case, if you want to know how many times two values are combined in a certain way, you could easily add a column that has these combined values (e.g., splitId#splitValue ) and use that in your indexes.
If you want to know more about advanced patterns and such, I advise you to watch this pretty famous re:invent talk by Rick Houlihan or to read the DynamoDB book.
As a last note, I want to add that switching to a SQL server usually is not the solution. Picking NoSQL over SQL is usually based on non-functional requirements. There is a reason NoSQL databases are used in applications that require very low-latency retrieval of data in huge datasets, but as with everything, trade-offs are the name of the game.
Pretty new to the dynamoDb and the whole AWS, it's very exciting but I feel the learning curve is a bit steep. Anyway, here is my situation and my problem.
We have a mobile react native app which stores into a dynamoDb table one row each time the users are doing a search. (the database is a search history with a UUID and then the search criteria). On average we have a few thousands new searches into the table every day. The table has just a primary key which is the search id.
The app is quite new but we are reaching the few hundred thousand rows in the table already and can expect having a million in the following months. The data is plain simple data with unique id and string and numbers in the other attributes. No connection, no relationship, etc... That's already when I felt maybe DynamoDb may not have been the best choice but still, I read everywhere it can be suitable for anything if properly managed.
Next to this there is a webapp dashboard which -thanks to a rest api using nodejs lambdas- queries the dynamoDB to make statistics about the searches: how many searches per day, list of last searches... the problem is DynamoDb is not really suitable to query hundred thousands of data (the 1mb limit, query limitations, credits...).
When I do a scan I get only 3000 searches. I tried to make a loop on the scan using the last index requested but after a few test I did not get data and I blocked the maximum throughput. It seems really clear that I don't have the right approach to bring all these searches to my web app. So now what would be the right approach? My ideas are the following but I am open to more experienced one:
Switching to a SQL database (using the aws migration ?). Will it really be easier then?
creating lambdas to execute scheduled jobs every night to make statistics every day so that I don't have to query the full database all the time but just some of the most recent searches and the statistics rows? Is it doable? any node.js / lambdas tutorial you may know regarding this?
better management of indexes? I am still very lost regarding those.
Looking forward to your opinions.
Add another layer to take care for full text search.
For example, with Elasticsearch, or Algolia or other similars.
Notes:
Elasticsearch may be cost you a lot if compare the cost on dynamodb
Reference:
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/08/amazon-dynamodb-elasticsearch-integration/
We are updating data in an Excel sheet for a particular event id, We need to retrieve the primary key item from the dynamodb table for the particular event id and need to update values in the excel.
Doing this manually for few articles is ok. But if we need to update 10000 of event id values, how can we automate this process through python or any other method? Please Assist on this
If you're asking about how to automate this in Excel, then one option is to use the Office Interop APIs for Excel from your favorite .NET language (C# is really easy to use for this sort of task). Dynamo has client SDKs for .NET, again making it relatively easy to query your source table.
For the .Net SDK for Dynamo, start here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sdk-for-net/v3/developer-guide/dynamodb-intro.html
For Office automation, you have two options:
You can either write a .Net application that would interface with Excel and process the file, reading from Dynamo
You can try using the automation features from Excel via scripting (but I am not sure how well that would work with the external dependency on the AWS SDK)
For the latter you might start here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/interop/how-to-access-office-onterop-objects
There are lots of examples for automating Excel using C#. If you find that you're stuck on something in particular, feel free to ask here on SO but the more focused the question the quicker and better answers you'll get.
As far as the approach for your particular task, I would:
make a console application that opens the Excel document (workbook) you want to edit
enumerate the sheets and pick the one you need to update (presumably the first one?!)
then, for each of the rows in the sheet, read the eventid from the corresponding cell
make the DynamoDB query and get the data you need for that event
update the cells for that row
repeat this for all rows until you're done
As a potential optimization, if there aren't that many records in Dynamo (10,000 is a pretty low number), I would look into scanning the Dynamo table into memory first and then doing the lookups in the memory. This has the added benefit that it will be significantly cheaper. Scanning all 10K items and storing in memory will usually be on the order of 15-20 times cheaper than making individual Get requests for each item.
followed below steps to complete the dynamodb update
1.We have read and converted source csv data into dictionary
with open('test.csv', 'r') as f: reader = csv.reader(f) your_list
= list(reader) list_1=[] dict1={} for i in range(1, len(your_list)):
dict1[your_list[0][0]]=your_list[i][0]
dict1[your_list[0][1]]=your_list[i][1]
dict1[your_list[0][2]]=your_list[i][2]
dict1[your_list[0][3]]=your_list[i][3] list_1.append(dict1)
dict1={}
I have not copied the complete script here , just pasted one small batch script
2.Using dynamodb scan operation compared the eventid in source and destination
We have faced data retrivel issue here , at a time we can get 1 MB of data in dynamodb
3.We have verified each batch records with dynamodb table and completed the update process
We are looking at Amazon Redshift to implement our Data Warehouse and I would like some suggestions on how to properly design Schemas in Redshift, please.
I am completely new to Redshift. In the past when I worked with "traditional" data warehouses, I was used to creating schemas such as "Source", "Stage", "Final", etc. to group all the database objects according to what stage the data was in.
By default, a database in Redshift has a single schema, which is named PUBLIC. So, my question to those who have worked with Redshift, does the approach that I have outlined above apply here? If not, I would love some suggestions.
Thanks.
With my experience in working with Redshift, I can assert the following points with confidence:
Multiple schema: You should create multiple schema and create tables accordingly. When you'll scale, it'll be easier for you to pin-point where exactly the table is supposed to be. Let us say, you have 3 schema, named production, aggregates and rough. Now, you know that the table production will contain the tables that are not supposed to be changed (mostly OLTP data) - such as user, order, transactions tables. Table aggregates will have aggregated data built over raw tables - such as number of orders placed per user per day per category. Finally, rough will contain any table that doesn't hold a business logic but is required for some temporary work - let us say to check the genre of movies for a list of 1 lakh users, which is shared with you in an excel file. Simply create a table in rough schema, perform your operations and drop the table. Now you very clearly know where you'll find the tables based on whether they are raw, aggregated or simply temporary tables.
Public schema: Forget it exists. Any table that is not preceded with a schema name, gets created there. A lot of clutter - no point in storing any important data there.
Cross schema joins: There's no stopping here. You may join as many tables from as many schema as required. In fact, it is desirable you create dimension tables and join on a PK later, rather than to keep all the information in a single table.
Spend some quality time in designing the schema and underlying table structure. When you expand, it'll be easier for you to classify things better in terms of access control. Do let me know if I've missed some obvious points.
You can have multiple databases in a Redshift cluster but I would stick with one. You are correct that schemas (essentially namespaces) are a good way to divide things up. You can query across schemas but not databases.
I would avoid using the public schema as managing certain permissions there can be difficult (easier to deny someone access to public than prevent them from being able to create a table for example).
For best results if you have the time, learn about the permissions system up front. You want to create groups that have access to schemas or tables and add/remove users from groups to control what they can do. Once you have that going it becomes pretty easy to manage.
In addition to the other responses, here are some suggestions for improving schema performance.
First: Automatic compression encodings using COPY command
Improve the performance of Amazon Redshift using the COPY command. It will get data into Redshift database. The COPY command is clever enough. It automatically chooses the most appropriate encoding settings for the data it uploads. You don’t have to think about it. However, it does so only for the first data upload into an empty table.
So, make sure to use a significant data set while uploading data for the first time, which Redshift can assess to set the column encodings in the best way. Uploading a few lines of test data will confuse Redshift to know how best to optimize the compression to handle the real workload.
Second: Use Best Distribution Style and Key
Distribution-style decides how data is distributed across the nodes. Applying a distribution style at table level tells Redshift how you want to distribute the table and the key. So, how you specify distribution style is important for good query performance with Redshift. The style you choose may affect requirements for data storage and cluster. It also affects the time taken by the COPY command to execute.
I recommend setting the distribution style to all tables with a smaller dimension. For large dimension, distribute both the dimension and associated fact on their join column. To optimize the second large dimension, take the storage-hit and distribute ALL. You can even design the dimension columns into the fact.
Third: Use the Best Sort Key
A Redshift database maintains data in a table with an arrangement of a sort-key-column if specified. Since it’s sorted in each partition; each cluster node upholds its partition in predefined order. (While designing your Redshift schema, also consider the impact on your budget. Redshift is priced by amount of stored data and by the number of nodes.)
Sort key optimizes Amazon Redshift performance significantly. You can do it in many ways. First, use data filtering. If where-clause filters on a sort-key-column, it skips the entire data blocks. It’s because Redshift saves data in blocks. Each block header records the minimum and maximum sort key value. Filter outside of that range, the entire block may get skipped.
Alternatively, when joining two tables, sorted on their joint keys, the data is read in matching order. Also, you can merge-join without separate sort-steps. Joining large dimension to a large fact table will be easy with this method because neither will fit into a hash table.
I’m quite new to NoSQL and DynamoDB and I used to RDBMS. I’m designing database for a game and we're using DynamoDB and AWS Lambda for our backend. I created a table name “Users” for player profile that contains the user information and resources. Because the game has inventory system I also created a table name “UserItems”.
It’s all good until I realized DynamoDB don’t have transaction and any operation that is executed on both table (for example using an item that increase resource) has a chance of failure on one table while success on other and will cause missing data which affect our customers.
So I was thinking maybe my multiple tables design is not good since it’s a habit of me to design multiple table when I’m working with RDBMS. Which let me to think of storing the entire “UserItems” as hash in “Users” but I’m not sure this is a good practice because the size of a single row in Users table will be really big (we may have 500 unique items per users) and each time I pull or put data from/to “Users” (most of the time don’t need “UserItems” data) the read/write throughput will be also really large.
What should I do, keep the multiple tables design and handle transaction manually or switch to single table design? Or maybe there is a 3rd option?
Updated: more information about my use case
Currently I have 2 tables
Users: UserId (key), Username, Gold
UserItems: UserId (partition key), ItemId (sort key), Name, GoldValue
Scenarios:
User buy an item: Users.Gold will be deduced, new UserItem will be add to UserItems table.
User sell an item: Users.Gold will be increased, the Item will be deleted from UserItems table.
In both scenarios above I will have to do 2 update operation for 2 tables which without transaction there is a chance one of them failed.
To solve that I consider using single table solution which is a single Users table with 4 columns UserId(key), Username, Gold, UserItems. However there are two things I'm worried about:
Data in UserItems might be come to big for a single cell because one user could have up to 500 items.
To add/delete item I have to pull the UserItems from dynamodb, add/delete item and then put it back into Users. So I have to do 1 read and 1 write operation for 1 action. And because of issue (1) the read/write data size could become really big.
FWIW, the AWS documentation on NoSQL Design for DynamoDB suggests to use a single table:
As a general rule, you should maintain as few tables as possible in a
DynamoDB application. As emphasized earlier, most well designed
applications require only one table, unless there is a specific reason
for using multiple tables.
Exceptions are cases where high-volume time series data are involved,
or datasets that have very different access patterns—but these are
exceptions. A single table with inverted indexes can usually enable
simple queries to create and retrieve the complex hierarchical data
structures required by your application.
NoSql database is best suited for non-trasactional data. If you bring normalization(splitting your data into multiple tables) into noSQL, then you are beating the whole purpose of it. If performance is what matters most, then you should consider only having a single table for your use case. DynamoDB supports Range Keys, and also supports Secondary Indices. For your usecase, it would be better to redesign your table to use Range Keys.
If you can share more details about your current table, maybe i can help you with more inputs.