Well, that's the nice thing about a library... when it works, all that effort happens under the hood. :)
By "regular ole" I presume you mean some flavor of RDBMS. Those have significant issues at scale that the newfangled platforms don't... but as you see there's a price to be paid at design time.
If I do my job right, you get to have your cake & eat it too!
The key focus of EM is the implementation of a multi-entity data model along the lines of the Single Table Design Pattern.
Recall that, in DDB, your index has two parts: hash & range key. If you want to have many entities in the same table, then you need a way of distinguishing between different entities, and a way of locating an individual record. In your primary index, those account for your hash and range keys, respectively: the hash key is your entity differentiator, and the range key is your entity id (which may come from a different record property from one entity to another). If you follow the development of the article, you’ll see how this plays out with variously constructed keys across different indexes.
Now, forget EM sharding for a minute and let DDB manage your sharding. Say you launch your application with little data and a single shard. Over time your data scales & spills over onto additional shards. When you perform a search, DDB has no way of knowing which shards are relevant so it has to search ALL of them.
But from the application side, your data scaled over TIME. Therefore, if you know which shards were created when, you could limit a time-based search only to the shards that are relevant to the search parameters. And a LOT of searches involve a time window.
Within the context of EM, when I say a “shard”, I am talking about a unique hash key value like `user!1F`, where `user` is the entity type and `1F` is the shard key. These may or may not map to physical DDB shards, and the good news is that you don’t NEED to care… DDB will flex if you don’t.
EM has a lot of features that greatly streamline the dev experience when operating against a DDB table with a multi-entity data model. You don’t HAVE to use the sharding feature… it’s literally just a config item, everything else happens behind the scenes. But when you DO use it, EM splits a search across sharded data into MANY parallel searches, one per shard, then assembles the returns into a coherent result with a “page key” that is actually a compressed map of ALL the underlying page keys. You don’t have to care about THAT, either… just pass the compressed string back to EM and it will rehydrate the page keys & perform the next set of searches.
So you get to choose your own adventure… you can run every entity on a single “shard” or run in parallel. I’d just keep an eye out for any drop in performance at scale and add a shard bump when I see it.
Also worth noting: EM is actually platform-agnostic. There is a companion repo that contains the DDB-specific client. This is still a bit in flux btw so be kind lol. Anyway the point is that other platforms that don’t have AWS’ resource footprint may not handle sharding as well, and EM will be able to render effectively the same result.
Hope that answers your question!
P.S. Worth noting: in addition to searching across multiple SHARDS, an EM query can also search across multiple INDEXES. Say you want to query on “name” and you want to query both your firstName and lastName indexes with the same “name” value. With EM, this is a SINGLE query that returns a combined, paged, deduped, sorted result set. Handy.
This approach is not really compatible with the single-table design pattern, which has some significant advantages. The point where performance degrades due to the issues you mentioned would be a good point to start applying sharding.
I've actually been using the JS version of EM in production for over a year. It's been working flawlessly.
The TS version is a complete rewrite that factors in a BUNCH of lessons learned and is completely--maybe obsessively lol--type-safe. The query builder got a LOT of attention, and the fluent API reduces even complex queries to a super-compact, declarative coding experience.
I'm pushing a big update tonight and will then resume my focus on the demo & docs, basically the companion stuff to this one. Should be ready for use in a couple of weeks.
Thanks for the interest, it really means a lot to me!
I'm the author, and thanks for asking! The article is really just background, submitted by a friend. Still building the demo & documentation, so my apologies for the confusion.
Entity Manager is a framework for defining, managing, and most importantly QUERYING an entity model with DynamoDB. It's actually platform-generic, so the DynamoDB-specific machinery is implemented at https://github.com/karmaniverous/entity-client-dynamodb
Entity Manager's most important feature is that it permits a simple, scheduled partition sharding configuration and then transparent, multi-index querying of data across shards with a very compact, fluent query API.
This resolves the biggest challenge of using DynamoDB at scale, which is that very large data sets MUST be sharded, and a given query can ONLY operate against a single shard. If you're querying on the basis of a related record, you won't know which shard your results will be on so you must query ALL shards.
Entity Manager reduces this to an effortless operation: once you've defined your sharding strategy for a given entity, you can forget sharding is even a thing.
Watch a complex Javascript configuration object collapse into declarative goodness thanks to type safety, abstraction, and generic design. Just had a really good day today so thought I'd share!
I've used AnkiApp extensively for the past year, as I've been learning Indonesian out on Bali.
I have come to the conclusion that shared decks don't work, at least not for me. The reason is that actually assembling the deck has turned out to be almost as valuable as practising with it.
I've got well over 1,000 cards in my Indo deck right now. I had to go find every translation and decide whether synonyms should be on the same card. That activity produces its own kind of learning.