Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #11188
| Path | csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.wiretrip.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Return-Path | <przemolicc@poczta.fm> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.012 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; '(using': 0.05; 'memory.': 0.05; 'python:': 0.05; 'ram': 0.05; 'python': 0.08; '>>>>': 0.09; 'fetch': 0.09; 'spawn': 0.09; 'developer': 0.12; 'entries': 0.13; 'library': 0.15; '(note': 0.16; 'cores': 0.16; 'end).': 0.16; 'postgresql)': 0.16; 'rows': 0.16; 'subset': 0.16; 'xml)': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; "wouldn't": 0.17; 'wed,': 0.17; '>>>': 0.18; 'memory': 0.21; 'trying': 0.21; 'connections': 0.21; 'file,': 0.21; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; '(or': 0.23; '+0100,': 0.23; 'away.': 0.23; 'joining': 0.23; 'pm,': 0.24; 'there.': 0.24; 'aug': 0.24; 'xml': 0.25; 'string': 0.26; 'fact': 0.27; 'problem': 0.28; 'correct': 0.28; 'server': 0.29; 'oracle': 0.29; 'order.': 0.29; 'stefan': 0.29; '(and': 0.29; 'script': 0.29; '+0200,': 0.30; 'dom': 0.30; 'one)': 0.30; 'queue': 0.30; 'table.': 0.30; 'threads': 0.30; "skip:' 10": 0.30; "didn't": 0.31; 'chris': 0.32; 'list': 0.32; 'usually': 0.32; 'there': 0.33; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.33; 'however,': 0.34; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.34; 'quite': 0.34; 'idea': 0.34; 'subject: ?': 0.34; 'rather': 0.35; 'running': 0.35; 'problem.': 0.36; 'file': 0.36; 'another': 0.37; 'disk': 0.37; 'fastest': 0.37; 'push': 0.37; 'streaming': 0.37; 'thread': 0.37; 'put': 0.37; 'several': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'something': 0.37; 'amounts': 0.38; 'size,': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'i.e.': 0.39; 'sets': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'recommended': 0.39; 'data': 0.39; 'why': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'sense': 0.39; "i'd": 0.40; 'more': 0.60; 'huge': 0.61; 'your': 0.61; 'target': 0.61; 'back': 0.62; 'from:no real name:2**0': 0.63; 'free': 0.63; 'friendly': 0.64; 'charset:iso-8859-2': 0.66; 'view': 0.67; 'thousands': 0.67; 'database,': 0.68; 'flow': 0.68; 'carefully': 0.68; 'header:Reply-To:1': 0.71; 'reply-to:no real name:2**0': 0.71; 'database.': 0.74; 'received:pl': 0.84; '12:17': 0.84; '256': 0.84; 'fly,': 0.84; 'slow.': 0.84; 'url:pl': 0.93 |
| Date | Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:40:30 +0200 |
| From | przemolicc@poczta.fm |
| To | python-list@python.org |
| Subject | Re: String concatenation - which is the fastest way ? |
| References | <20110810111754.GD5045@host.pgf.com.pl> <CAPTjJmrF0GcVs0onfoCHAbMe38b5iLXgFX1R7G_RXcKxjPH5wQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110810133146.GE5045@host.pgf.com.pl> <j1ub3q$65c$1@dough.gmane.org> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <j1ub3q$65c$1@dough.gmane.org> |
| User-Agent | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
| X-Interia-Antivirus | OK |
| X-EMID | 9aeafc98 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | quoted-printable |
| Content-Disposition | inline |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.12 |
| Precedence | list |
| Reply-To | przemolicc@poczta.fm |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2152.1313044834.1164.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 134 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1313044834 news.xs4all.nl 23908 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:50516 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| Xref | x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:11188 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 06:20:10PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote: > przemolicc@poczta.fm, 10.08.2011 15:31: >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:32:06PM +0100, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:17 PM,<przemolicc@poczta.fm> wrote: >>>> I'd like to write a python (2.6/2.7) script which connects to database, fetches >>>> hundreds of thousands of rows, concat them (basically: create XML) >>>> and then put the result into another table. Do I have any choice >>>> regarding string concatenation in Python from the performance point of view ? >>>> Since the number of rows is big I'd like to use the fastest possible library >>>> (if there is any choice). Can you recommend me something ? >>> >>> First off, I have no idea why you would want to create an XML dump of >>> hundreds of thousands of rows, only to store it in another table. >>> However, if that is your intention, list joining is about as efficient >>> as you're going to get in Python: >>> >>> lst=["asdf","qwer","zxcv"] # feel free to add 399,997 more list entries >>> xml="<foo>"+"</foo><foo>".join(lst)+"</foo>" >>> >>> This sets xml to '<foo>asdf</foo><foo>qwer</foo><foo>zxcv</foo>' which >>> may or may not be what you're after. >> >> since this process (XML building) is running now inside database (using native SQL commands) >> and is one-thread task it is quite slow. What I wanted to do is to spawn several python subprocesses in parallel which >> will concat subset of the whole table (and then merge all of them at the end). >> Basically: >> - fetch all rows from the database (up to 1 million): what is recommended data type ? >> - spawn X python processes each one: >> - concat its own subset >> - merge the result from all the subprocesses >> >> This task is running on a server which has many but slow cores and I am trying to divide this task >> into many subtasks. > > Makes sense to me. Note that the really good DBMSes (namely, PostgreSQL) > come with built-in Python support. The data are in Oracle so I have to use cx_oracle. > You still didn't provide enough information to make me understand why you > need XML in between one database and another (or the same?), but if you > go that route, you can just read data through multiple connections in > multiple threads (or processes), have each build up one (or more) XML > entries, and then push those into a queue. Then another thread (or more > than one) can read from that queue and write the XML items into a file > (or another database) as they come in. I am not a database developer so I don't want to change the whole process of data flow between applications in my company. Another process is reading this XML from particular Oracle table so I have to put the final XML there. > If your data has a considerable size, I wouldn't use string concatenation > or joining at all (note that it requires 2x the memory during > concatenation), but rather write it into a file, or even just process the > data on the fly, i.e. write it back into the target table right away. > Reading a file back in after the fact is much more resource friendly than > keeping huge amounts of data in memory. And disk speed is usually not a > problem when streaming data from disk into a database. This server has 256 GB of RAM so memory is not a problem. Also the select which fetches the data is sorted. That is why I have to carefully divide into subtasks and then merge it in correct order. Regards Przemyslaw Bak (przemol) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dom marzen - kup lub wynajmij taniej niz myslisz! Szukaj >> http://linkint.pl/f2a0d
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: String concatenation - which is the fastest way ? przemolicc@poczta.fm - 2011-08-11 08:40 +0200
csiph-web