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.
Related
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.
What I never understood about DynamoDB is how to design a table to effectively get all data with one particular field lying in some range. For example, time range - we would like to get data created from timestamp1 up to timestamp2. According to keys design, we can use only sort key for such a purpose. However, it automatically means that the primary key should be the same for all data. But according to documentation, it is an anti-pattern of DynamoDB usage. How to deal with the situation? Could be creating evenly distributed primary key and then a secondary key which primary part is the same for all items but sort part is different for all of them be a better solution?
You can use Global Secondary Index which in essence is
A global secondary index contains a selection of attributes from the base table, but they are organized by a primary key that is different from that of the table.
So you can query on other attributes that are unique.
I.e. as it might not be clear what I meant, is that you can choose something else as primary key that is possible to be unique and use a repetetive ID as GSI on which you are going to base your query.
NOTE: One of the widest applications of NoSQL DBs is to store timeseries, which you cannot expect to have a unique identifier as PK, unless you specify the timestamp.
I want to create a DynamoDB table that allows me to save notes from users.
The attributes I have:
user_id
note_id (uuid)
type
text
The main queries I will need:
Get all notes of a certain user
Get a specific note
Get all notes of a certain type (the less used query)
I know that in terms of performance and DynamoDB partitions note_id would be the right choice because they are unique and would be distributed equally over the partitions but on the other hand is much harder to get all notes of a user without scanning all items or using a GSI. And if they are unique I suppose it doesn't make any sense to have a sort key.
The other option would be to use user_id as partition key and note_id as sort key, but if I have certain users that are a much larger number of notes than others wouldn't that impact my performance?
Is it better to have a partition key unique (like note_id) to scale well with DynamoDB partitions and use GSIs to create my queries or to use instead a partition key for my main query (user_id)?
Thanks
Possibly the simplest and most cost-effective way would be a single table:
Table Structure
note_id (uuid) / hash key
user_id
type
text
Have two GSIs, one for "Get all notes of a certain user" and one for "Get all notes of a certain type (the less used query)":
GSI for "Get all notes of a certain user"
user_id / hash key
note_id (uuid) / range key
type
text
A little note on this - which of your queries is the most frequent: "Get all notes of a certain user" or "Get a specific note"? If it's the former, then you could swap the GSI keys for the table keys and vice-versa (if that makes sense - in essence, have your user_id + note_id as the key for your table and the note_id as the GSI key). This also depends upon how you structure your user_id - I suspect you've already picked up on; make sure your user_id is not sequential - make it a UUID or similar.
GSI for "Get all notes of a certain type (the less used query)"
type / hash key
note_id (uuid) / range key
user_id
text
Depending upon the cardinality of the type field, you'll need to test whether a GSI will actually be of benefit here or not.
If the GSI is of little benefit and you need more performance, another option would be to store the type with an array of note_id in a separate table altogether. Beware of the 400k item limit with this one and the fact that you'll need to perform another query to get the text of the note.
With this table structure and GSIs, you're able to make a single query for the information you're after, rather than making two if you have two tables.
Of course, you know your data best - it's best to start with what you think is best and then test it to ensure it meets what you're looking for. DynamoDB is priced by provisioned throughput + the amount of indexed data stored so creating "fat" indexes with many attributes projects, as above, if there is a lot of data then it could become more cost effective to perform two queries and store less indexed data.
I would use user_id as your primary partition(hash) key and note_id as your primary range(sort) key.
You have already noted that in an ideal situation, each partition key is accessed with equal regularity to optimise performance see Design For Uniform Data Access Across Items In Your Tables. The use of user_id is perfectly fine as long as you have a good spread of users who regularly log in. Indeed AWS specifically encourage this option (see 'Choosing a Partition Key' table in the link above).
This approach will also make your application code much simpler than your alternative approach.
You then have a second choice which is whether to apply a Global Secondary Index for your get notes by type query. A GSI key, unlike a primary key, does not need to be unique (see AWS GSI guide, therefore I suggest you would simply use type as your GSI partition key without a range key.
The obvious plus side to using a GSI is a faster result when you perform the note type query. However you should be aware of the downsides also. A GSI has a separate throughput allowance than your table, so you need to provision this in addition to your table throughput (at extra cost). If you dont provision your GSI with enough read units it could end up slower than a scan on your table. If you dont provision enough write units, your table writes could be throttled, even if your table had enough write units.
Also, AWS warn that GSIs are updated asynchronously (usually within a fraction of a second but it can be longer). This means queries on your GSI might return the 'wrong' result if you have table writes and index reads very close together. If this was a problem you would need to handle it in your application code.
I see this as 2 tables. User and notes with a GSI on the notes table. Not sure how else you could do it. Using userId as primary key and note_id as sort key requires that you can only retrieve elements when you know both the user_id and the note_id. With DynamoDB if your not scanning you have to satisfy all the elements in the primary key, so both the partition and and sort if there is one. Below is how I would do this.
Get all notes of a certain user
When a user creates a note I would add this to the users table in the users notes attribute. When you want to get all of a users notes then retrieve the user and access the array/list of note_ids stored there.
{ userId: xxx,
notes: [ note_id_1,note_id_2,note_id_3]
}
Get a specific note
A notes table with node_id as the primary key would make that easy.
{
noteId: XXXX,
note: "sfsfsfsfsfsf",
type: "standard_note"
}
Get all notes of a certain type (the less used query)
I would use a GSI on the notes table for this with the attributes of "note_type" and note_id projected onto it.
Update
You can pull this off with one table and a GSI (See the two answers below for how) but I would not do it. Your data model is so simple why make it more complicated than users and notes.
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.
I have a table of songs in Dynamodb that looks like this:
I wish to return to my app a list of songs by two conditions "Category" and "UserRating"
At present my hash key is "Artist" and rangekey is "Songtitle".
I think that if I made a secondary key "Category" I could search for all the songs in a particular category and similarly I could do this for rating but I don't know how to do this for both?
I also believe I understand the understand the difference between the global and local index.
So what I am thinking (which is probably not correct) is that I need to create a global secondary index on "Category" and do a query on the attribute "UserRating".
Will this work? And even if this works is this the correct way to be doing it?
Thanks
With query you can only search for the Hash (now the partition key) and optionally the range (now the sort key). This has to drive your table and index design.
In your case if wish to query Category on its own then you'd create a new GSI with Category as the partition key. If you want to search within a Category for songs with a rating of something, then you'd create that index with a partition key of Category and a sort key of Rating.
If you need to query by rating alone, then you'd have to create a GSI with rating as the partition key. Bear in mind however you can't do anything like "greater than" or "between" on the partition key: you can only do this on the sort key.
One other factor to consider is expected performance. Amazon advise that partition keys have high cardinality. It is called the partition key because it is the means by which the data is physically organised into partitions. If you have an index with x number of rows across only a few categories, then your data will not be well distributed, which causes a potential performance bottleneck. For non-serious projects this won't be noticeable however.
Hope this helps somewhat.