dynamo db many to many to many relationships
I have a db design that requires a many 2 many 2 many.
ObjectA can have multiples of ObjectB
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectC
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectD
ObjectC can have multiples of ObjectE
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectE
I dug up this post about adjacent lists.
It makes sense for the simpler model they are dealing with.
The other thing I should add is I don't want to duplicate data. For instance I am storing addresses in ObjectB, I want those to be unique. I was thinking of just Base64 encoding the entire address line and using that for hash key.
I have two questions:
is dynamo the correct database to use for this?
What would the data model look like in dynamo?
amazon-web-services amazon-dynamodb data-modeling
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
add a comment |
I have a db design that requires a many 2 many 2 many.
ObjectA can have multiples of ObjectB
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectC
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectD
ObjectC can have multiples of ObjectE
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectE
I dug up this post about adjacent lists.
It makes sense for the simpler model they are dealing with.
The other thing I should add is I don't want to duplicate data. For instance I am storing addresses in ObjectB, I want those to be unique. I was thinking of just Base64 encoding the entire address line and using that for hash key.
I have two questions:
is dynamo the correct database to use for this?
What would the data model look like in dynamo?
amazon-web-services amazon-dynamodb data-modeling
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
add a comment |
I have a db design that requires a many 2 many 2 many.
ObjectA can have multiples of ObjectB
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectC
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectD
ObjectC can have multiples of ObjectE
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectE
I dug up this post about adjacent lists.
It makes sense for the simpler model they are dealing with.
The other thing I should add is I don't want to duplicate data. For instance I am storing addresses in ObjectB, I want those to be unique. I was thinking of just Base64 encoding the entire address line and using that for hash key.
I have two questions:
is dynamo the correct database to use for this?
What would the data model look like in dynamo?
amazon-web-services amazon-dynamodb data-modeling
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
I have a db design that requires a many 2 many 2 many.
ObjectA can have multiples of ObjectB
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectC
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectD
ObjectC can have multiples of ObjectE
ObjectB can have multiples of ObjectE
I dug up this post about adjacent lists.
It makes sense for the simpler model they are dealing with.
The other thing I should add is I don't want to duplicate data. For instance I am storing addresses in ObjectB, I want those to be unique. I was thinking of just Base64 encoding the entire address line and using that for hash key.
I have two questions:
is dynamo the correct database to use for this?
What would the data model look like in dynamo?
amazon-web-services amazon-dynamodb data-modeling
amazon-web-services amazon-dynamodb data-modeling
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
edited Nov 13 '18 at 17:36
Wolfie010
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
asked Nov 13 '18 at 17:11
Wolfie010Wolfie010
85
85
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think the answer to you question is actually in the question itself. You want to have many to many relationships in a NoSQL (non relational) DB. Despite being able to achieve your goal with Dynamo, this will implicate a lot of unnecessary problems. I suggest you change the direction and go with RDS, the SQL Service of AWS.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53286274%2fdynamo-db-many-to-many-to-many-relationships%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the answer to you question is actually in the question itself. You want to have many to many relationships in a NoSQL (non relational) DB. Despite being able to achieve your goal with Dynamo, this will implicate a lot of unnecessary problems. I suggest you change the direction and go with RDS, the SQL Service of AWS.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
add a comment |
I think the answer to you question is actually in the question itself. You want to have many to many relationships in a NoSQL (non relational) DB. Despite being able to achieve your goal with Dynamo, this will implicate a lot of unnecessary problems. I suggest you change the direction and go with RDS, the SQL Service of AWS.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
add a comment |
I think the answer to you question is actually in the question itself. You want to have many to many relationships in a NoSQL (non relational) DB. Despite being able to achieve your goal with Dynamo, this will implicate a lot of unnecessary problems. I suggest you change the direction and go with RDS, the SQL Service of AWS.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
I think the answer to you question is actually in the question itself. You want to have many to many relationships in a NoSQL (non relational) DB. Despite being able to achieve your goal with Dynamo, this will implicate a lot of unnecessary problems. I suggest you change the direction and go with RDS, the SQL Service of AWS.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
answered Nov 13 '18 at 18:01
AlexKAlexK
834413
834413
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
add a comment |
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
That is a fair point and is what i was thinking. The only draw back I can think of is I am using lambda, and at scale is connection limit to RDS. But thank you for the response.
– Wolfie010
Nov 13 '18 at 18:17
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
There are workarounds to this. You can search a bit on the matter and you will find a lot of information. Simply put, you can achieve connection pooling by creating connections out of the handler scope. Check this forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=216000
– AlexK
Nov 13 '18 at 18:25
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
I was able to get this easily working in SQL. Thanks for the advice.
– Wolfie010
Nov 15 '18 at 21:48
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53286274%2fdynamo-db-many-to-many-to-many-relationships%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
