No biggie but the "relational" in relational database systems is not the about the "relationship" as in the ER model, as the speaker suggests (as I understood him). Codd was a mathematician and assigned the name "relation" to a set of tuples (e.g. a table), inspired by "finitary relations" in mathematics. I think the relation is the one between columns in one table.
Slides can be found here: www.slideshare.net/AmazonWebServices/building-with-aws-databases-match-your-workload-to-the-right-database-dat301-aws-reinvent-2018?qid=dc6a3e4f-bb3d-425a-a2cf-1f37784447e1&v=&b=&from_search=1
Why doesn't dynamodb support simple aggregations like mongodb does? I understand that table joins would be very inefficient accross multiple shards. However, I would have thought that aggregations would be more efficient....
I think he said it - DynamoDB is for queries that you know before hand. Aggregations kind of bleed into that ad hoc style of querying that requires something else
@@alexnarayanstechandetc Not necessarily. If you know the access pattern of the aggregation, you can pre-aggregate in DynamoDB. That's the DynamoDB's way of doing aggregation.
![AWS re:Invent 2018: [REPEAT 1] Deep Dive and Best Practices for Amazon Redshift (ANT401-R1)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TJDtQom7SAA/mqdefault.jpg)
![AWS re:Invent 2017: [REPEAT] Which Database to Use When? (DAT310-R)](/img/1.gif)
Oh man if he joined any university and taught databases I would drop everything to take that course. What an amazing talk.
He needs to teach at the University. More useful than anything my professors taught me
University can not pay as much as aws xD.
Never saw an overview session as great as this is.
oh my God this is great overview....
I wish I could convey technical information this succinctly and quickly.
No biggie but the "relational" in relational database systems is not the about the "relationship" as in the ER model, as the speaker suggests (as I understood him). Codd was a mathematician and assigned the name "relation" to a set of tuples (e.g. a table), inspired by "finitary relations" in mathematics. I think the relation is the one between columns in one table.
Great talk and great overview. Just how many database types does one organization need!?!?! LOL :-)
Best speaker
Awesome, thanks
Excellent talk
1:36 Larry Ellison keeps poking at them that they still use Oracle databases. Guess they are finally jumping ship.
will the slide deck be available?
Slides can be found here: www.slideshare.net/AmazonWebServices/building-with-aws-databases-match-your-workload-to-the-right-database-dat301-aws-reinvent-2018?qid=dc6a3e4f-bb3d-425a-a2cf-1f37784447e1&v=&b=&from_search=1
Why doesn't dynamodb support simple aggregations like mongodb does? I understand that table joins would be very inefficient accross multiple shards. However, I would have thought that aggregations would be more efficient....
I think he said it - DynamoDB is for queries that you know before hand. Aggregations kind of bleed into that ad hoc style of querying that requires something else
@@alexnarayanstechandetc Not necessarily. If you know the access pattern of the aggregation, you can pre-aggregate in DynamoDB. That's the DynamoDB's way of doing aggregation.