You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to issues@flink.apache.org by "Hong Liang Teoh (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2025/06/26 16:35:01 UTC

[jira] [Updated] (FLINK-37343) Support for Dynamic Table Selection in DynamoDB Sink Connector

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-37343?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Hong Liang Teoh updated FLINK-37343:
------------------------------------
    Fix Version/s: aws-connector-5.2.0
                       (was: aws-connector-5.1.0)

> Support for Dynamic Table Selection in DynamoDB Sink Connector
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-37343
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-37343
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Connectors / DynamoDB
>            Reporter: Alex Aranovsky
>            Priority: Not a Priority
>             Fix For: aws-connector-5.2.0
>
>
> Hey, we have a use-case where we need to sink records into multiple ddb tables without a job reset (topology change), we use the DynamicKafka source and we've essentially forked the regular ddb connector and added support for providing a table as part of the ElementsConverter interface. Since DDB batchWriteItem supports multiple items in a single request, I don't really see a downside into not including it. There is some serdes cost associated with providing the table name as a string on each element we provide to the sink, I'm not sure how significant this is.
> This is both a question and a feature request: I can merge the fork upstream, is this something that makes sense to include in the default connector?
> Is the serdes cost negligible?
> Can I add the table name field as part of the DynamoDbWriteRequest class? it will be a breaking change.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)