alternator: maybe support StreamSpecification: null

[dimaqq]

I'm testing out scylladb+alternator.
I've figured to swap dynalite with scylla in our unit tests first.

I'm hitting this error:
https://github.com/scylladb/scylla/blob/a8a4e584ec3332067b6b9e1756ba1bf2392e1424/alternator/executor.cc#L807-L809

I've tracked it down to some library in our stack passing None / null to the StreamSpecification when creating a table.
The intention is to use a default, i.e. same as if the StreamSpecification was not there at all.
It seems that AWS SaaS dynamodb doesn't make a distinction.
dynamodb-local doesn't appear to make a distinction.
dynalite doesn't care.

Maybe Scylla should also ignore StreamSpecification: null

Installation details
Scylla version (or git commit hash): 3.3.rc1-0.20200209.0d0c1d43188
Cluster size: 🤷‍♂️
OS (RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu/AWS AMI): Docker scylladb/scylla

[nyh]

I'm having trouble reproducing this in boto3 in Python, trying to pass StreamSpecification=None doesn't pass boto3's internal checks:

E               ParamValidationError: Parameter validation failed:
E               Invalid type for parameter StreamSpecification, value: None, type: <type 'NoneType'>, valid types: <type 'dict'>

If I try to pass StreamSpecification={}, DynamoDB doesn't allow this either.
Anyway, I'll prepare a patch for you to test, and test what I can in the boto3-based tests.

[nyh]

I just sent a patch titled "Alternator: allow CreateTable with streams explicitly turned off" to the mailing list, which should hopefully fix this issue (if you can, please test it).
With that patch, if StreamSpecification is not a map (e.g., a null as in your case) or if it has StreamEnabled=false, then table creation is allowed. Only if StreamEnabled=true is explicitly set, do we fail the table creation.

[dimaqq]

I'm having trouble reproducing this in boto3 in Python, trying to pass StreamSpecification=None doesn't pass boto3's internal checks:

E               ParamValidationError: Parameter validation failed:
E               Invalid type for parameter StreamSpecification, value: None, type: <type 'NoneType'>, valid types: <type 'dict'>

If I try to pass StreamSpecification={}, DynamoDB doesn't allow this either.
Anyway, I'll prepare a patch for you to test, and test what I can in the boto3-based tests.

We use another library, https://github.com/HENNGE/aiodynamo which is notably faster :)
The divergence from boto* was fixed there too, just in case.

[dorlaor]

Nice! I guess it works for you after the fix? Can you please share performance numbers, I see there is a performance section in the docs but no actual results.

…

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:32 PM Dima Tisnek ***@***.***> wrote: I'm having trouble reproducing this in boto3 in Python, trying to pass StreamSpecification=None doesn't pass boto3's internal checks: E ParamValidationError: Parameter validation failed: E Invalid type for parameter StreamSpecification, value: None, type: <type 'NoneType'>, valid types: <type 'dict'> If I try to pass StreamSpecification={}, DynamoDB doesn't allow this either. Anyway, I'll prepare a patch for you to test, and test what I can in the boto3-based tests. We use another library, https://github.com/HENNGE/aiodynamo which is notably faster :) The divergence from boto* was fixed there too, just in case. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5796 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANHURNFFET7ZBNRKQWBNX3RKKKRHANCNFSM4KTSX6QQ> .

[ojii]

Can you please share performance numbers, I see there is a performance section in the docs but no actual results.

Some results can be found in this comment, they were generated with the code found here.

TL;DR: For query/scan (especially of many items), aiodynamo is about 2x faster than boto based libraries.

[nyh]

Already in 4.0, not backporting to 3.3.