- 新しい順
- 投票が多い順
- コメントが多い順
DyanmoDB Stream => Lambda => Firehose => S3
This would be the recommended method as Marco has already mentioned Firehose acts as a buffer. While the Lambda does take a batch of 100 for example, this will result in 100 PutObject requests to S3. Whereas, using Firehose, it will merge the objects in to larger files and can also handle partitioning which will result in cheaper Puts to S3 and more efficient retrieval if needed. See CompressionFormat here.
Furthermore, you can make use of Lambda Event Filters to only invoke your functions should the item be evicted for expiring TTL. I wrote a short blog about it here. It highlights how you can make the entire process more efficient.
I also reached out to the author of the blog post and he also gave a similar answer with details. So I would like to share that detail
Lambda has a max invocation payload of 6MB, so even if your batch size is 10,000, with larger records you'll be limited by the 6MB limit. With firehose it's easy to get objects in the 100s of MB range on a busy stream.
Thank you all & I feel great supports and learn a lot!
Firehose acts as a buffer. When you write directly to S3 this can result in a lot of requests to S3. You have to pay also for the amount of requests to S3. Without that buffering you can end up with a huge portion of your bill just the S3 requests.
This happens to me with an IoT example long time ago.
@Macro Thank you! However according to this official AWS blog, the batch size of 100 has been configured between AWS DynamoDB stream and Lambda. It means that Lambda receives a batch of 100 records, then it can write 100 records to S3 directly?
関連するコンテンツ
AWS公式更新しました 7ヶ月前- AWS公式更新しました 8ヶ月前
Thank you @Leeroy. Is this possible if I merge 100 records inside my lambda function, and do one PutObject to S3?
Yes, you can do that, but you will have to manually write the code to compress the items and you will also lose partitioning ability.