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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #28218 > unrolled thread

Re: Async client for PostgreSQL?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#28218 — Re: Async client for PostgreSQL?

> 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.".

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28373

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28374

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web