Comment by rjdavis3
9 years ago
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/developergu...
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.
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/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
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?
1 reply →
Not being able to serialize an empty string is abysmally poor design.
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.