Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #28374

Re: Async client for PostgreSQL?

Show key headers only | View raw

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 3:28:52 PM UTC-4, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
> > Hi
> 
> >
> 
> > does running on tornado imply that you would not consider twisted 
> 
> > http://twistedmatrix.com ?
> 
> >
> 
> > If not, twisted has exactly this capability hiding long running 
> 
> > queries on whatever db's behind deferToThread().
> 
> All right, I was reading its documentation
> 
> 
> 
> http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/10.1.0/api/twisted.internet.threads.deferToThread.html
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't tell too much about it: "Run a function in a thread and 
> 
> return the result as a Deferred.".
> 

You can find more documentation here:

http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/current/core/howto/threading.html

Also, Twisted has dedicated APIs for interacting with databases asynchronously:

http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/current/core/howto/rdbms.html

Additionally, there is a non-blocking (rather than thread-based) implementation of the above API available for PostgreSQL:

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/txpostgres

> 
> 
> Run a function but in what thread? Does it create a new thread for every 
> 
> invocation? In that case, I don't want to use this. My example case: 10% 
> 
> from 100 requests/second deal with a database. But it does not mean that 
> 
> one db-related request will do a single db API call only. They will 
> 
> almost always do more: start transaction, parse and open query, fetch 
> 
> with cursor, close query, open another query etc. then commit 
> 
> transaction. 8 API calls to do a quick fetch + update (usually under 
> 
> 100msec, but it might be blocked by another transaction for a while...) 
> 
> So we are talking about 80 database API calls per seconds at least. It 
> 
> would be insane to initialize a new thread for each invocation. And 
> 
> wrapping these API calls into a single closure function is not useful 
> 
> either, because that function would not be able to safely access the 
> 
> state that is stored in the main thread. Unless you protet it with 
> 
> locks. But it is whole point of async I/O server: to avoid using slow 
> 
> locks, expensive threads and context switching.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, deferToThread uses a thread pool? But it doesn't say much about 
> 
> it. (Am I reading the wrong documentation?) BTW I could try a version 
> 
> that uses a thread pool.
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad, by the way. We have async I/O servers for Python that can be 
> 
> used for large number of clients, but most external modules/extensions 
> 
> do not support their I/O loops. Including the extension modules of the 
> 
> most popular databases. So yes, you can use Twisted or torandoweb until 
> 
> you do not want to call *some* API functions that are blocking. (By 
> 
> *some* I mean: much less blocking than non-blocking, but quite a few.) 
> 
> We also have synchronous Python servers, but we cannot get rid of the 
> 
> GIL, Python threads are expensive and slow, so they cannot be used for a 
> 
> large number of clients. And finally, we have messaging services/IPC 
> 
> like zeromq. They are probably the most expensive, but they scale very 
> 
> well. But you need more money to operate the underlying hardware. I'm 
> 
> starting to think that I did not get a quick answer because my use case 
> 
> (100 clients) fall into to the "heavy weight" category, and the solution 
> 
> is to invest more in the hardware. :-)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
>     Laszlo

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Async client for PostgreSQL? Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> - 2012-09-01 21:28 +0200
  Re: Async client for PostgreSQL? calderone.jeanpaul@gmail.com - 2012-09-03 15:09 -0700
  Re: Async client for PostgreSQL? calderone.jeanpaul@gmail.com - 2012-09-03 15:09 -0700

csiph-web