4 ms·

What is the point of this trending? To try and get AWS to fix it? I must admit this was a gotcha for me at first but it is documented right on their standard Li

What is the point of this trending? To try and get AWS to fix it? I must admit this was a gotcha for me at first but it is documented right on their standard Limits page. I'm guessing the fix is non-trivial or they probably would have just done it. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/Limits.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developergu...

idbehold 10y ago
This limitation should be in a giant alert at the top of all DynamoDB documentation. They are being misleading in their documentation: > A map is similar to a JSON object. There are no restrictions on the data types that can be stored in a map element, and the elements in a map do not have to be of the same type. > Maps are ideal for storing JSON documents in DynamoDB. The following example shows a map that contains a string, a number, and a nested list that contains another map.
- rjdavis3 10y ago
  I agree they should fix it but I think they have been transparent about the restriction. It is already listed within most of their documentation. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReference/API_PutItem.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReferenc... It is also listed as a Gotcha on the AWS Open Guide which trended on HN a few weeks ago. https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws#dynamodb https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws#dynamodb
  - idbehold 10y ago
    Are you agreeing that they should fix the issue or their documentation suggesting that "Maps are ideal for storing JSON documents in DynamoDB"? Or both?
    - rjdavis3 10y ago
      I would love for them to fix storage of empty string but I don't think that is going to happen given all the documentation they have around not allowing it. Must have been easier for them to just document the limitation. I do agree that they could do a better job in their documentation explaining the difference between JSON spec and their JSON equivalent that they store. It is not clear that the JSON you post is not stored in the same exact way. They could be more clear about the types they append to your data (L, S, SS, N) and then reference the link I put above about the restrictions for each type.
____nope 10y ago
Not being able to serialize an empty string is abysmally poor design.
- kedean 10y ago
  There's a difference between poor design and performance optimizations. Lacking any information, I'm inclined to commit an appeal to authority and guess that it's probably a performance optimization.

idbehold 10y ago

This limitation should be in a giant alert at the top of all DynamoDB documentation. They are being misleading in their documentation: > A map is similar to a JSON object. There are no restrictions on the data types that can be stored in a map element, and the elements in a map do not have to be of the same type. > Maps are ideal for storing JSON documents in DynamoDB. The following example shows a map that contains a string, a number, and a nested list that contains another map.

rjdavis3 10y ago
I agree they should fix it but I think they have been transparent about the restriction. It is already listed within most of their documentation. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReference/API_PutItem.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReferenc... It is also listed as a Gotcha on the AWS Open Guide which trended on HN a few weeks ago. https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws#dynamodb https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws#dynamodb
- idbehold 10y ago
  Are you agreeing that they should fix the issue or their documentation suggesting that "Maps are ideal for storing JSON documents in DynamoDB"? Or both?
  - rjdavis3 10y ago
    I would love for them to fix storage of empty string but I don't think that is going to happen given all the documentation they have around not allowing it. Must have been easier for them to just document the limitation. I do agree that they could do a better job in their documentation explaining the difference between JSON spec and their JSON equivalent that they store. It is not clear that the JSON you post is not stored in the same exact way. They could be more clear about the types they append to your data (L, S, SS, N) and then reference the link I put above about the restrictions for each type.

____nope 10y ago

Not being able to serialize an empty string is abysmally poor design.

kedean 10y ago
There's a difference between poor design and performance optimizations. Lacking any information, I'm inclined to commit an appeal to authority and guess that it's probably a performance optimization.