We have a BUSINESS_TABLE with ID, NAME, FIELD1, FIELD2, ...., FIELDn.
In WCC, we want to link the docs to several items from the BUSINESS_TABLE (eg: Document_1 is related to id_1, id_2, id_455, id_456, and so on), and these values have to be indexed, so we can run queries on this data from WCC.
Our first idea was to list these values in a custom metadata of type memo (xLinkedBusinessItems = id_1, id_2, id_455, ......)
But the memo type is limited to 1000 chars, what is not enough for our need.
(We know how to extend the memo to 4000 chars, but even so, it is not enough.)
Do you have an idea ? How can we tackle this feature ?
Thanks.
Related
I have 40 tables. One table has 20 rows, and one of the columns have 1385 distinct values.
I would like to use this in a relationship with another table.
TableName(1385 rows) Column:Name:(1385 distinct values)
But when I try to do this in Powerbi/Manage-Relations, it will only accept the option "Many-to-Many" relationship. It reports that none of the column are "Unique".
Well, the data in the column is unique. So how can I configure this column to be unique so I can use it in a "One-to-Many" relationship"?
Do I have to edit the DAX expression and put the "DISTINCT" keyword in the expression for that column? And How?
Now I have:
}, {"Columnname", Int64.Type}, {
what you can try is to perform remove duplicates in that table(i know its already contains distinct values but you can give it a try)... and/or just load the data again.
Best way would be when you group your data in the query editor. This way your table has only distinct values and you can create your relationship.
In the query designer under Home > Group By you can group after your column.
Example
Table:
Table (2):
Relationship (One to Many):
Result:
I hope this helps.
I'm having a little hard time understanding Cassandra. I simply couldn't write this question without making it look like confusing, but as I detail it below it may become clearer.
Suppose I have this datatype that I've created:
CREATE TYPE transaction (
transaction_id UUID,
value float,
transaction_date timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY (transaction_id, transaction_date)
);
PS: I'm using it as if it was a 'class', but that might be a logical mistake of mine, please correct me if it can't be used as such.
Anyway, also I have this Column Family, in which I've created a list of this 'transaction' datatype:
CREATE TABLE transactions_history_by_date (
wallet_address UUID,
user_id UUID,
transactions list <transaction>,
PRIMARY KEY (wallet_address, transaction_date))
WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (transaction_date DESC);
So what I'd like to know if this Column Family above is correct. I'd like to get all the transactions of a wallet, sorted by the transaction date (but the date is a column of the 'transaction' datatype - and to complicate it even more, in this Column Family there's a list of transactions, and not just a single one).
No, in Cassandra you can sort only on the value of the clustering column - in this case you need to move transaction_date into table itself...
To expand on Alex's answer, in your situation I think the best approach would probably be to denormalise your table. Rather than using a UDT, you could create something like this:
CREATE TABLE transactions_history_by_date (
wallet_address UUID,
user_id UUID,
transaction_id UUID,
value float,
transaction_date timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY ((wallet_address), transaction_date, transaction_id))
WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (transaction_date DESC);
Now you can make the following query and the results will be sorted by date:
SELECT * FROM transactions_history_by_date WHERE wallet_address = ...;
Note that I added transaction_id as a second clustering key. If this was omitted the table would not have been able to hold two transactions that had the same wallet_address and the same transaction_date. This is because unique rows are identified by the primary key.
From the DynamoDB documentation
The Query operation allows you to limit the number of items that it
returns in the result. To do this, set the Limit parameter to the
maximum number of items that you want.
For example, suppose you Query a table, with a Limit value of 6, and
without a filter expression. The Query result will contain the first
six items from the table that match the key condition expression from
the request.
Now suppose you add a filter expression to the Query. In this case,
DynamoDB will apply the filter expression to the six items that were
returned, discarding those that do not match. The final Query result
will contain 6 items or fewer, depending on the number of items that
were filtered.
Looks like the following query should return (at least sometimes) 0 records.
In summary, I have a UserLogins table. A simplified version is:
1. UserId - HashKey
2. DeviceId - RangeKey
3. ActiveLogin - Boolean
4. TimeToLive - ...
Now, let's say UserId = X has 10,000 inactive logins in different DeviceIds and 1 active login.
However, when I run this query against my DynamoDB table:
QuerySpec{
hashKey: null,
rangeKeyCondition: null,
queryFilters: null,
nameMap: {"#0" -> "UserId"}, {"#1" -> "ActiveLogin"}
valueMap: {":0" -> "X"}, {":1" -> "true"}
exclusiveStartKey: null,
maxPageSize: null,
maxResultSize: 10,
req: {TableName: UserLogins,ConsistentRead: true,ReturnConsumedCapacity: TOTAL,FilterExpression: #1 = :1,KeyConditionExpression: #0 = :0,ExpressionAttributeNames: {#0=UserId, #1=ActiveLogin},ExpressionAttributeValues: {:0={S: X,}, :1={BOOL: true}}}
I always get 1 row. The 1 active login for UserId=X. And it's not happening just for 1 user, it's happening for multiple users in a similar situation.
Are my results contradicting the DynamoDB documentation?
It looks like a contradiction because if maxResultSize=10, means that DynamoDB will only read the first 10 items (out of 10,001) and then it will apply the filter active=true only (which might return 0 results). It seems very unlikely that the record with active=true happened to be in the first 10 records that DynamoDB read.
This is happening to hundreds of customers that are running similar queries. It works great, when according to the documentation it shouldn't be working.
I can't see any obvious problem with the Query. Are you sure about your premise that users have 10,000 items each?
Your keys are UserId and DeviceId. That seems to mean that if your user logs in with the same device it would overwrite the existing item. Or put another way, I think you are saying your users having 10,000 different devices each (unless the DeviceId rotates in some way).
In your shoes I would just remove the filterexpression and print the results to the log to see what you're getting in your 10 results. Then remove the limit too and see what results you get with that.
Thank you for taking the time in reading my question.
My scenario is this. I have a geopoints table in dynamodb.
It consists of:
object_type(String HASH)
id(String RANGE)
lat(Number GSI RANGE)
lng(Number GSI RANGE)
It has indexes of:
object_type-lat-index(object_type-hash lat-range)
object_type-lng-index(object_type-hash lng-range)
What I want to do:
IndexName: "object_type-lat-index",
KeyConditionExpression: "object_type=:otype AND (lat BETWEEN :llat AND :glat) AND (lng BETWEEN :llng AND :glng)",
I want to be able to query lat and lng by getting the betweens of a least lat and greater lat, and least lng and greater lng
I can't seem to find it in the dynamodb docs. Can this be done or am I implementing it correctly? Because the error is returning something like 'Can only have 1 or 2 conditions'
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/GSI.html#GSI.Querying
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/QueryAndScan.html
The way it works is the query works against the table itself (the keys defined in the table) or a GSI. You cannot combine multiple GSIs and the table HK in the same query.
2 options here:
1) perform 2 queries against the 2 indexes and intersect the results on the client
2) do one 1 query against one of the indexes w/ a filter expression that works with the other expression (so basically, for example: query on lat with a filter for long).
You can create a new attribute in the table that has a combination of several attributes and create a secondary index for that new attribute, in this way, you can search for several parameters using KeyConditionExpression.
but if you need to search for coinside (contain), this is not the way
I'm using the following: dynamodb2, boto, python. I have the following code for creating a table:
table = Table.create('mySecondTable',
schema=[HashKey('ID')],
RangeKey('advertiser'),
throughput={'read':5,'write':2},
global_indexes=[GlobalAllIndex('otherDataIndex',parts=[
HashKey('date',data_type=NUMBER),
RangeKey('publisher', date_type=str),
],throughput={'read':5,'write':3})],
connection=conn)
I would like to be able to have the following data that I can query by:
ID, advertiser, date, publisher, size, and color
That means I need a different schema. When I add additional points it does not query unless the column name is listed in the schema.
The problem however is that right now I am only able to query by Id, advertiser, date, and publisher in this case. How can I add additional columns that I can query by?
I read this which appears to say that it is possible:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/GSI.html
However there is no example here:
http://boto.readthedocs.org/en/latest/dynamodb2_tut.html
I tried adding an additional range key however it doesn't work (cannot have duplicates)
I'd like it to be like:
table = Table.create('mySecondTable',
schema=[
RangeKey('advertiser'),
otherKey('date')
fourthKey('publisher') ... etc
throughput={'read':5,'write':2},
connection=conn)
Thanks!
If you want to add additional range keys you need to use Local secondary index.
You can query the LSI in the same way that you query the base table. You need to provide an exact value for the hashkey and a comparison-predicate for range key.