Wow. Wild digs.
Tell me about it. My googoomomometer is going babies.

Thursday, January 27

Blog

(Tinkery-Type Noises)

Youtube video, default size (now widescreen, 480x270 16:9 video).
[youtube=5_sfnQDr1-o]


Youtube video, custom size, including the extra 30 vertical pixels the player uses:
[youtube=5_sfnQDr1-o size=400x255]


Youtube video, custom size, not including the extra 30 vertical pixels - the BBCode engine detects if you've entered something that works out to exactly 4:3 or 16:9 and adjusts the player size appropriately:
[youtube=5_sfnQDr1-o size=400x225]


If you mess up the size it still works:
[youtube=5_sfnQDr1-o size=400x224]


Specify just the width - assumes you want 16:9:
[youtube=5_sfnQDr1-o size=540x]

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Monday, January 24

Life

I Bought A Bed

Apparently they're quite popular.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:12 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Saturday, January 22

Geek

La Di Da

Just hid my earlier post because I found a bug in one of my benchmarks, and went on a bugsplatting and optimising spree.

I'm back to working on Minx 1.2.  There are two main things that I've wanted to fix for ages.

First, the common database queries for blog index pages, which often require complex joins and sorts - very well optimised joins and sorts, hence the speed, but common queries should be in index order wherever possible and not sort at all.

Second, the tag engine, which needs to populate the tag table with vastly more data than you will ever use - approximately 300 tags for each comment, for example, of which the typical comment template uses 6.

The first problem was what's had me looking into every kind of database under the Sun.*  Since all databases suck, and since it turns out that Python is too slow to take over the job** I'm back to MySQL and its relatives for the main datastore - with the likelihood of offloading search to Xapian and using Redis as a sort of structured cache.

Speaking of structured caches, that's the fix for the query problem.  It's called the Stack Engine, and basically it prebuilds and maintains all the standard queries for all your folders and threads and stores them so that you can page through them without ever having to do an index scan, much less a sort.  The initial version uses MySQL to store the stacks, but it can just as easily (and more efficiently) be handled by Redis.

This will add a few milliseconds when you post a comment, but significantly reduce the query time for displaying a page.

The other major change is in the Template Engine.  Minx has a lot of tags - a lot of a lot of tags; as I mentioned, there are currently about 300 tags just for a comment, and that's set to double in the new relase.

However, I've finally had the breakthrough I needed and found an elegant way to make most of those tags vanish.  In 1.1.1 I set many of the sub-tags to lazily evaluate - there's just a placeholder in the tag table until you actually use that tag.  If you never use it, the function never gets called.

The new engine takes this a two three steps further.  First, for the most part it automatically maps the data from database into the tag table without me having to write hundreds of lines of fiddly code - or even set up lists of fields names.  And it automatically copes with schema changes too, where the old version needed code changes and schema changes to be carefully synchronised.

Second, it completely virtualises about 80% of the existing tags.  There's not even a placeholder anymore; the tag engine looks, finds that the tag you are using doesn't exist but that it can be calculated from a value that does, calls the appropriate and pops the result into your page.  This cuts down the size of the tag table by 80% - and cuts down the time spent building it by 80% as well.

The third part is the code I've been hacking on most of the night, the new data mapper.  It can now pull more than eight million*** fields a second out of the database and into the tag table ready for use - effectively forty million, since 80% of the tags are now virtual.  The tag table itself is also significantly improved, so that adding and removing records (as your template runs through a list of posts or comments, for example) is - um, I'll have to go back and benchmark that part, but a hell of a lot faster.

So (a) these two modules make things run a whole lot faster, especially for big sites like Ace's, which I want to bring across to Minx ASAP, and (b) they make the code much cleaner, wiping out two existing modules full of boilerplate and making the rest of the code much easier to maintain.

So.  Good.  Now I just need to change all the other code to use the new modules....

* Well, that and my day job, where I need to store and index a hundred million posts a day.
** Which will be the subject of another post, you can bet.
*** Latest benchmark run is set at 4,458,841 fields per second in pure Python, 8,515,711 with Psyco.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 746 words, total size 5 kb.

Friday, January 21

Geek

News From The Land Of Enchanted Rodents

I've been reading up on SQLAlchemy since my earlier adventures.  The developer's blog post on profiling convinced me that he knew what he was doing, and yet my benchmarking demonstrated that SQLAlchemy was unacceptably slow.

Clearly I was missing something.

What I was missing was what SQLAlchemy does at the high level - missing it because I wasn't looking at that level at all.  But the way my code was written, based on the respective tuorials from SQLAlchemy and Elixir, it was using the high level functions.

Which automatically map your objects to the database and keep them in sync.

So, basically, you can define a bunch of classes, define how they map onto the database tables, and just mess about with the objects and leave SQLAlchemy to persistificate them for you to any arbitrary SQL database.

Which is of course horribly complicated, and, in an interpreted language such as Python, kind of slow.

And not what I want to do right now.  Though it might come in handy at some point.

But - SQLAlchemy is split into two modules: The ORM (object-relational mapper), the high-end slow part, and the Core, a data abstraction layer, that just lets you do queries against different SQL databases without worrying about the fact that PostgreSQL and SQLite support INTERSECT but MySQL and Ingres don't.  Or do inserts of complex records without having to painstakingly count the %s in the query string and match them up against your parameters.

Which is exactly what I want.

And if I want to use the ORM in some self-contained modules where performance isn't critical, I can do that too.

So I'm off to run my benchmarks again and see what shakes out.

Update: (a) Still slow.  (b) Kind of horrible.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Thursday, January 20

Anime

On July 4th Of This Year, Kuronuma Will Blow Up The Moon

Kimi ni Todoke, you've been gone too long.

Yes, it's back, and it's full of awwww and winsome.  And the other way 'round too.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Geek

Lockon StratosDB

Target database acquired.  Analysing.

Open source...  Confirmed, GPLv2.
Supports UNION, INTERSECT, EXCEPT...  Confirmed.
Supports full-text search...  Confirmed.
Supports XML...  Confirmed, SQL extensions, XQuery, XPath.
Supports arrays...  Negative  Maybe?
Supports user-defined types...  Confirmed.
Supports geospatial data...  Confirmed-ish.*
Supports graph structures...  Confirmed, RDF, SPARQL.
Supports Python...  Confirmed, both as client and scripting engine.
Supports HTTP, SMTP, POP, IMAP, NNTP...  Confirmed.  Wait, what?  I thought this was a database.

Openlink Virtuoso could bear further investigation.  The Openlink Blog looks satisfyingly full of technical stuffs.

I've also been taking a look at Cubrid, another interesting where-did-that-come-from** open source database.

* You can find a handy feature matrix here.  The open source version has all the features of the commercial release, except for clustering, replication, and geospatial data.  The lack of replication in the open source version is unfortunate, but in my projects I tend to go for application-level replication anyway. 

Funnily enough, I was just looking at the free (as in beer) version of Informix, and that does feature replication and clustering - only two nodes, but what do you want for free?


** Korea, as it turns out.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:12 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

Tuesday, January 18

Geek

The Difference Between C And Java

When you set the configuration file or command line parameters of a C program to tell it that it can use X amount of memory, it will use X amount of memory, and no more.

When you set the configuration file or command line parameters of a Java program to tell it that it can use X amount of memory, it will do whatever the hell it wants.

This is not intrinsic in the respective languages; rather, it seems to be an emergent property.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:18 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Sunday, January 16

Geek

The Cabinet Of Doctor Kyoto

Kyoto Cabinet is the successor (more or less) to Tokyo Cabinet, and like it, is a fast, modern, embedded database, not unlike Berkeley DB.

How fast can we stash movies in that, I wonder?

Method
Elapsed
User
System
Kyoto Cabinet/JSON
1.23
1.18
0.05
Kyoto Cabinet/MsgPack
1.65
1.19
0.45
SQL Individual Insert
10.4
4.1
1.8
SQL Bulk Insert
2.1
1.6
0.04
SQL Alchemy
33.2
26.4
2.1
SQL Alchemy Bulk
33.4
26.8
1.9
Elixir
35.8
28.7
2.3

Pretty darn fast, is the answer. That's a little unfair, since Kyoto Cabinet is an embedded database, not a database server.

(Interestingly, SimpleJSON outran MessagePack in this test, and for a very odd reason - system time went up ninefold.)

Oh, and one other thing - the random movie generator itself takes about 1s of that 1.23s.  So it's not 30x faster than Elixir here, it's more like 100x faster.

Kyoto Tycoon is a server layered atop Kyoto Cabinet, so I'm off to tinker with that next.

Update: 0.43 seconds to create a list of 100,000 random movies; 0.52 seconds to pack them all as JSON; 0.11 seconds to write them to a BTree-indexed Kyoto Cabinet database.  I've seen benchmarks that put Kyoto Cabinet at over a million records per second, and here it is running in a virtual machine under Python, single-threaded, at ~900,000.  So, yeah, it's quick. smile

Update:  Teehee!

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
11509 pixy      17   0  512m  82m 3932 S 237.4  0.2   0:39.00 python

Why yes, that Python program is using 2.37 CPUs. grin

It looks like two (busy) threads are the limit for Kyoto Cabinet, though; at four threads throughput actually went down by about 20%.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 289 words, total size 4 kb.

Friday, January 14

Geek

Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Flashbacks to 1988

Update: I think I've worked out why my benchmark results were so bad, and I'll be modifying my code and re-running them.  Stay tuned!

Well, possibly 1993.

Writing SQL is one of my least favourite tasks. SQL Alchemy and Elixir promise to magic this away (most of the time) by providing an object-relational mapping and an active record model.

What is now called the active record model is what I used in my day job from 1988 to 2006. It's good. In fact, anything else sucks. What the active record model means is that you interface with your database as though your data were yours, and not some precious resource doled out to you by your electronic betters as they saw fit.

What's not so good is that the performance I'm getting is more 1988 than 2006, let alone 2011.

I've created a database of 100,000 random movies (based on the Elixir tutorial). That took around 30 seconds. Then I went all Hollywood and created remakes of them all - that is, I updated the year field to 2012.

As a single statement in MySQL, that took 0.38 seconds.

As 100,000 individual raw updates fired off through the MySQL-Python interface (which is a horrible way to do things), 9 seconds.

Via Elixir... 230 seconds.

No. Just no. That's crap.

You can show the SQL that Elixir/Alchemy generates, and it's the same as what I'm doing manually. The SQL is fine. It's the rest of the library that's a horrible mess.

It takes 5.8 seconds to read those 100,000 movies in via Elixir.

It takes 0.34 seconds to read them in via MySQLdb and convert them into handy named tuples.* (In essence, inactive records.)

Okay, hang on one second. I'm using the less-well-known Elixir here on top of SQL Alchemy. How much of the damage is Elixir, and how much is SQL Alchemy itself?

Let's see! This is my first benchmark, creating 100,000 random movies:

Method
Elapsed
User
System
Single insert
10.4
4.1
1.8
Bulk insert
2.1
1.6
0.04
SQL Alchemy
33.2
26.4
2.1
SQL Alchemy Bulk
33.4
26.8
1.9
Elixir
35.8
28.7
2.3

(The bulk insert is not directly comparable; it's just the sane way to do things.)

Elixir is described as a thin layer on top of SQL Alchemy, and that appears to be true; the overhead is less than 10%, and it's quite elegant. The overhead of SQL Alchemy, on the other hand, is ugh.

This is why I spend so much time testing performance. I spend a lot more time benchmarking than I do actually writing code - or testing it. Because if your code has a bug, you can fix it. If your performance is broken by design, you have to throw the whole thing out and start again.

I know the SQL Alchemy guys aren't idiots, and I know they've spent considerable time profiling and optimising their code. What I don't know is why it's still so horrible.

The pre-release 0.7 code is supposed to be 60% faster, but I'm looking for 600% just to reach something acceptable. Is that even possible? I don't know, but I'll try to find out.

Update: Retested SQL Alchemy with bulk inserts (using add_all()).  No improvement.

* 300,000 records per second is pretty quick, though keep in mind that these are tiny records - just four fields.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 564 words, total size 6 kb.

Thursday, January 13

Geek

Meanwhile, Down At The Old Message-Packing Plant...

At my day job, we need to encode about 3000 incoming messages per second and send them whizzing around our network, to be plucked from the stream and decoded by any or all of a couple of dozen subsystems. No serialisers and deserialisers are something of a hobby of mine.

Mostly, we use JSON. (And thank you JSON for all but killing off XML. XML sucks and deserved to die.)

Every so often I run a little bake-off to see if there's anything significantly better than a good implementation of JSON. Until now there hasn't been anything with equivalent ease of use and significantly better performance.

Until now:

Codec
Dump
Load
Bytes
JSON
2.37
2.19
1675
Pickle
3.03
2.37
1742
MessagePack
1.37
0.29
1498
MessagePack/List

1.60

MessagePack/Schema

0.38

YAML
95.27
78.04
1631
BSON
2.85
1.05
1735

(Times in seconds for 100,000 records.)

No, it's not YAML. YAML is nice for easy-to-edit config files, but it's lousy for encoding and shipping lots of data. It's too flexible, and hence too slow.

MessagePack, on the other hand, is a compact binary JSON-style encoding. It's about twice as fast as JSON (I use SimpleJSON, a fast C implementation) for dumping data, and up to ten times as fast for loading it. In situations like a database where reads can be 100x as common as writes, that's a huge win.

One thing I noticed is that MessagePack for Python returns arrays as tuples (which are immutable) rather than lists. There are two ways to fix this in my use case. First, MessagePack itself allows you to provide a callback function used when creating arrays, so you can tell it to create lists instead. Second, I could use an advisory schema to look at the data after it's been unpacked and make corrections as needed.

As you'd expect, one of these methods takes a lot longer than the other and leaks memory like mad. Guess which one.

Oh, and the other thing - in my testing, I tried this out in both native Python and my usual environment of Python 2.6 with the Psyco JIT. In the latter environment, I was doing callbacks from the Cython implementation of the MessagePack wrapper - that is, statically compiled Python - to the Pysco list-creation wrapper function - dynamically compiled Python. And it worked. I thought at first that that was causing my memory leak, but the same leak showed up in native mode.

Update: Added BSON, using the C implementation in PyMongo (which provides a Python wrapper for the C library and a pure-Python version).  BSON is comparable with JSON and Pickle on encoding, and falls between JSON and MessagPack on decoding.

The advantage of BSON (to me) is that it natively supports dates and times, which JSON and MessagePack do not.  Pickle supports almost any Python object, but that's a problem in itself, and it's Python-specific.  YAML supports dates, but it's far too slow for intensive use.

Slight disadvantage of BSON is that everything has to be a document - a Python dict - at the top level.  You can't encode an array (list, tuple, etc) without wrapping it in a dict.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 533 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 2 >>
90kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.056 seconds.
57 queries taking 0.0194 seconds, 290 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.