I'm building an anonymous polling system using AWS QLDB. I record each vote in a QLDB "votes" table without user's identity and participation info into "participation" table with identity but without answers, because I need to check if a person has already voted.
The two table don't have any common keys. My goal is to make sure that there's no way to match an answer with user's identity. Is there any way to still match them by comparing the tables? Perhaps AWS QLDB is storing entries in a chronological order, which would make it simple to match.
Does this approach serve the purpose, and if not - do you know another, bulletproof solution?
I would write the vote to the vote table (their selection in the poll) and after success, write that they voted in pollID:1234 (that poll's ID) in a poll counting table, or on the users record in a User table.
In your app, ensure they haven't voted in pollID:1234 before recording a new vote selection.
All of this seems like it would mean the user can never change their answers, if you want to track WHO voted, they only once, and cannot change their vote.
All of the checks: they haven't voted, record the vote, and record the participation can happen in one QLDB transaction and then committed. That way you can check what you need to check (rules) and commit votes and participation, and then commit all statements to QLDB in 1 transaction.
Related
I've been using MongoDB for a few years now, and I'm starting to use Prisma's client, which seems to be providing excellent type safety. I'm not familiar at all with relational data storage, though...
This is how my database is looking:
Users are each associated with a single group
Each one of them can be a candidate in the group, and all vote for one of the group candidates during an election once they've been selected
What best practices would you advise me to follow here to store the votes? (I'm not talking about the privacy perspective specific to voting, this is a whole other topic, but only the performance & data storage stance)
Typically with MongoDB, I would create an embedded object in the Group document, with the User IDs of candidates as the keys, and an array of the User IDs of the voters for each candidate as the values.
But strong types & the relational database-inspired approach of Prisma seem to prevent me from doing anything like that, most likely for the better.
In a relational database, you would typically create a separate table to store the votes. Each row in the table would represent a single vote and would contain the following columns:
group_id: the ID of the group in which the vote took place
candidate_id: the ID of the candidate who received the vote
voter_id: the ID of the user who cast the vote
You can also add a timestamp column to store the date and time when the vote was cast.
To get the votes for a particular group, you would perform a query like this:
SELECT * FROM votes WHERE group_id = :groupId;
You can then use the results of this query to build the necessary data structures in your application.
Using a separate table to store votes has the advantage of keeping the data normalized, which can make it easier to work with and more performant. It also allows you to use foreign key constraints to ensure that each vote references a valid group and candidate.
I'm currently trying to learn Node.js and Mongoodb by building the server side of a web application which should manage insurance documents for the insurance agent.
So let's say i'm the user, I sign in, then I start to add my customers and their insurances.
So I have 2 collection related, Customers and Insurances.
I have one more collection to store the users login data, let's call it Users.
I don't want the new users to see and modify the customers and the insurances of other users.
How can I "divide" every user related record, so that each user can work only with his data?
I figured out I can actually add to every record, the _id of the one user who created the record.
For example I login as myself, I got my Id "001", I could add one field with this value in every customer and insurance.
In that way I could filter every query with this code.
Would it be a good idea? In my opinion this filtering is a waste of processing power for mongoDB.
If someone has any idea of a solution, or even a link to an article about it, it would be helpful.
Thank you.
This is more a general permissions problem than just a MongoDB question. Also, without knowing more about your schemas it's hard to give specific advice.
However, here are some approaches:
1) Embed sub-documents
Since MongoDB is a document store allowing you to store arbitrary JSON-like objects, you could simply store the customers and licenses wholly inside each user object. That way querying for a user would return their customers and licenses as well.
2) Denormalise
Common practice for NoSQL databases is to denormalise related data (ie. duplicate the data). This might include embedding a sub-document that is a partial representation of your customers/licenses/whatever inside your user document. This has the similar benefit to the above solution in that it eliminates additional queries for sub-documents. It also has the same drawbacks of requiring more care to be taken for preserving data integrity.
3) Reference with foreign key
This is a more traditionally relational approach, and is basically what you're suggesting in your question. Depending on whether you want the reference to be bi-directional (both documents reference each other) or uni-directional (one document references the other) you can either store the user's ID as a foreign user_id field, or store an array of customer_ids and insurance_ids in the user document. In relational parlance this is sometimes described to as "has many" or "belongs to" (the user has many customers, the customer belongs to a user).
Given a scenario where you have a User table, with id as PRIMARY KEY.
You have a column called email, and a column called name.
You want to UPDATE User.name based on User.email
I realized that the UPDATE command requires you to pass in a PRIMARY KEY. Does this mean I can't use a pure CQL migration, and would need to first query for the User.id primary key before I can UPDATE?
In this case, I DO know the PRIMARY KEY because the UUIDs are the same for dev and prod, but it feels dirty.
Yes, you're correct - you need to know primary key of the record to perform an update on the data, or deletion of specific record. There are several options here, depending of your data model:
Perform full scan of the table using effective token range scan (Look to this answer for more details);
If this is required very often, you can create a materialized view, with User.email as partition key, and fetch all message IDs that you can update (but you'll need to do this from your application, there is no nested query support in CQL). But also be aware that materialized views are "experimental" feature in Cassandra, and may not work all the time (it's more stable in DataStax Enterprise). Also, if you have some users with hundreds of thousands of emails, this may create big partitions.
Do like 2nd item with your code, by using an additional table
I think Alex's answer covers your question -- "how can I find a value in a PK column working backwards from a non-PK column's value?".
However, I think it's worth noting that asking this question indicates you should reconsider your data model. A rule of thumb in C* data model design is that you begin by considering the queries you need, and you've missed the UPDATE query use case. You can probably make things work without changing your model for now, but if you find you need to make other queries you're unprepared for, you'll run into operational issues with lots of indexes and/or MVs.
More generally, search around for articles and other resources about Cassandra data modeling. It sounds like you're basically using C* for a relational use case so you'll want to look into that.
I am very new to cassandra and currently in early stage of project where i am studying cassandra.
Now since cassandra says to de-normalize data and replicate it. So, i have a following scenario :
I have table, user_master, for users. A user has
subject [type text]
hobbies [type list]
uid [type int]
around 40 more attributes
Now, a user wants to search for another user. This search should look for all user who matches the subject and hobbies provided by user. For this reason i am planning to make a different table user_discovery which will have following attribute only for every user
subject [type text]
hobbies [type list]
uid [type int]
*other irrelevant attributes won't be part of this table.
Now my question is:
Do i need to write on both tables for every insert/update in user_master? Can updation of user_discovery be automated when their is any insert/update in user_master.
Even after studying a bit, i am still not so much sure that making a separate table would increase the performance.Since, number of users would be same in both table (yes, number of column would be very less in user_discovery). Any comment on this would be highly appreciated.
Thanks
The idea of separate tables for queries is to have the key of the table contain what you are looking for.
You don't say what the key of your second table looks like, but your wording "the following attributes for every user" looks like you plan to have the user (Id?) as key. This would indeed have no performance advantage.
If you want to find users by their hobby make a table having the hobby as key, and the user id (or whatever it is you use to look up users) as columns. Write one row per hobby, listing all users having that hobby. Write the user into every row matching one of his hobbies.
Do the same for the subject (i.e. separate table, subject as key, user ids as columns).
Then, if you want to find a user having a list of specific hobbies, make one query per hobby, creating the intersection of the users.
To use these kind of lookup-tables you would have indeed to update all table every time you update a user.
Disclaimer: I used this kind of approach rather successfully in a relative complex setting managing a few hundred thousand users. However, this was two years ago, on a Cassandra 1.5 system. I haven't really looked into the new features of Cassandra 2.0, so I have no idea whether it would be possible to use a more elegant approach today.
I have a system where actions of users need to be sent to other users who subscribe to those updates. There aren't a lot of users/subscribers at the moment, but it could grow rapidly so I want to make sure I get it right. Is it just this simple?
create table subscriptions (person_uuid uuid,
subscribes_person_uuid uuid,
primary key (person_uuid, subscribes_person_uuid)
)
I need to be able to look up things in both directions, i.e. answer the questions:
Who are Bob's subscribers.
Who does Bob subscribe to
Any ideas, feedback, suggestions would be useful.
Those two queries represent the start of your model:
you want the user to be the PK or part of the PK.
depending on the cardinality of subscriptions/subscribers you could go with:
for low numbers: using a single table and two sets
for high numbers: using 2 tables similar to the one you describe
#Jacob
Your use case looks very similar to the Twitter example, I did modelize it here
If you want to track both sides of relationship, I'll need to have a dedicated table to index them.
Last but not least, depending on the fact that the users are mutable OR not, you can decide to denormalize (e.g. duplicate User content) or just store user ids and then fetch users content in a separated table.
I've implemented simple join feature in Achilles. Have a look if you want to go this way