DB is really fast ..
But one particular simple view is getting hung when I try to create the image for it.
Have tried creating images for complex views and got succeeded.
Any specific reasons ?
There is a good article on the Kognitio forums at http://www.kognitio.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12 which outlines a number of ways to investigate performance issues.
It covers common problems such as:
locking
queueing
user errors such as missing join conditions
table fragmentation on disk for disk-based queries
concurrent activity
skew
It also highlights extra information to capture should the above information not be adequate to resolve the problem.
Related
I was wondering about best practices in Django of validating the tables content
I am creating a Sales Orders and my SO should check availability of the items I have in stock and if they are not in stock it will trigger manufacturing orders and purchase orders.
I don't want to make very complex view and looking for a way to decouple logic from there and also I predict performance issues.
What are best practices or ready solutions I can use in Django framework to address view complexity ?
I see different possibilities but I am wondering what will be the best fit in my case :
managers
celery - just to run a job occasionally I want the app to be
real time so I don't like this option.
using signals /pre_save/post_sav
model validation
creating extra layer like services.py file
Since I am new to Django I am a bit puzzled what root to take.
Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for.
Signals are for doing things automatically when events happen. Most commonly used to do things before and after model operations. So if you need to do something every time you save a record or every time you create a new record or delete that is where you use signals.
Managers are used to manage record retrieval and manipulations. If you want to do some clever way of retrieving data you can define a custom manager and add some custom methods to it. If you want to override some default behaviors of querysets you would also do it with a custom manager.
Celery is for running things asynchronously. If you are worried that some processing you are doing might take a long time that is were you might consider offloading things to celery. A friendly warning though, doing things asynchronously raises complexity of your code quite a bit, since you need to add some mechanism to pass the data back from celery tasks into your django app and your users.
services.py link that you posted seems to do what you want, it just provides a place where you can put logic that is not specific to a particular view.
Here on stackoverflow, i got an advice from some experienced developers that premature optimization is the root of all evil.
What i suggest is keep it simple. Making the view a little more complex is actually better than effectively adding one more layer of complexity. I would suggest that you try to put most of you logic in models and whatever remains after that in views.
Also, unnecessarily using multiple packages would not solve much of your problem so use the when its necessary. Otherwise try to write the minimal logic yourself so that you donot have to use many apps.
Signals and other things as everybody say is not a great thing however promising it may seem. Just try to make things simpler.
One more point from my side as you are just starting out, go through class based views and try to use them when you get familiar. That will simplify your views the most. Plus, if ou are new to django, read a little code. https://github.com/vitorfs/bootcamp might help you in initiation.
I've got a web page loading pretty slowly, so I installed the Django Debug Toolbar. I'm pretty new at this, so I'm trying to figure out what I can do with it.
I can see the database did 264 queries in 205 ms. Looks kind of high. I'm pretty sure I can cut down on that by adding some indexes and just writing better queries. But my question is: What is a "good" number that should be trying to hit here? What is generally accepted as "fast enough" and further optimization isn't really worth it. 50ms? 20ms?
Also on this same page it's showing 2500ms in user CPU. That sounds terrible to me, and I'm surprised it's so much higher than the database, which I assumed was the bottleneck. Is this maybe an indication that I am trying to do too much in python code instead of at the database layer? Would reducing the number of SQL queries help with CPU? (Waiting between queries?). Again is there some well known target response time I should be aiming for.
I'm looking for a snappy response from my clients. Right now when I click around I can feel a "pregnant pause" before the pages load.
By default accessing related model fields results in one extra query per model per row. Look into select_related() and prefetch_related(), this usually cuts down number of queries and speeds things up by a lot. I think debug toolbar shows you the actual queries, if not, need to enable sql logs before doing any query optimizations. Once you cut down number of queries to a minimum (no extra queries per pow), look for the slowest query and use EXPLAIN sql syntax to see if indexes are being used, this is another area where it can get slow especially on big data.
Usually database is the bottleneck, unless you are doing some major looping in your code. If you believe python code is slow, then need to profile it, otherwise it's just guessing.
I'm writing a project in C++/Qt and it is able to connect to any type of SQL database supported by the QtSQL (http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qtsql.html). This includes local servers and external ones.
However, when the database in question is external, the speed of the queries starts to become a problem (slow UI, ...). The reason: Every object that is stored in the database is lazy-loaded and as such will issue a query every time an attribute is needed. On average about 20 of these objects are to be displayed on screen, each of them showing about 5 attributes. This means that for every screen that I show about 100 queries get executed. The queries execute quite fast on the database server itself, but the overhead of the actual query running over the network is considerable (measured in seconds for an entire screen).
I've been thinking about a few ways to solve the issue, the most important approaches seem to be (according to me):
Make fewer queries
Make queries faster
Tackling (1)
I could find some sort of way to delay the actual fetching of the attribute (start a transaction), and then when the programmer writes endTransaction() the database tries to fetch everything in one go (with SQL UNION or a loop...). This would probably require quite a bit of modification to the way the lazy objects work but if people comment that it is a decent solution I think it could be worked out elegantly. If this solution speeds up everything enough then an elaborate caching scheme might not even be necessary, saving a lot of headaches
I could try pre-loading attribute data by fetching it all in one query for all the objects that are requested, effectively making them non-lazy. Of course in that case I will have to worry about stale data. How would I detect stale data without at least sending one query to the external db? (Note: sending a query to check for stale data for every attribute check would provide a best-case 0x performance increase and a worst-caste 2x performance decrease when the data is actually found to be stale)
Tackling (2)
Queries could for example be made faster by keeping a local synchronized copy of the database running. However I don't really have a lot of possibilities on the client machines to run for example exactly the same database type as the one on the server. So the local copy would for example be an SQLite database. This would also mean that I couldn't use an db-vendor specific solution. What are my options here? What has worked well for people in these kinds of situations?
Worries
My primary worries are:
Stale data: there are plenty of queries imaginable that change the db in such a way that it prohibits an action that would seem possible to a user with stale data.
Maintainability: How loosely can I couple in this new layer? It would obviously be preferable if it didn't have to know everything about my internal lazy object system and about every object and possible query
Final question
What would be a good way to minimize the cost of making a query? Good meaning some sort of combination of: maintainable, easy to implement, not too aplication specific. If it comes down to pick any 2, then so be it. I'd like to hear people talk about their experiences and what they did to solve it.
As you can see, I've thought of some problems and ways of handling it, but I'm at a loss for what would constitute a sensible approach. Since it will probable involve quite a lot of work and intensive changes to many layers in the program (hopefully as few as possible), I thought about asking all the experts here before making a final decision on the matter. It is also possible I'm just overlooking a very simple solution, in which case a pointer to it would be much appreciated!
Assuming all relevant server-side tuning has been done (for example: MySQL cache, best possible indexes, ...)
*Note: I've checked questions of users with similar problems that didn't entirely satisfy my question: Suggestion on a replication scheme for my use-case? and Best practice for a local database cache? for example)
If any additional information is necessary to provide an answer, please let me know and I will duly update my question. Apologies for any spelling/grammar errors, english is not my native language.
Note about "lazy"
A small example of what my code looks like (simplified of course):
QList<MyObject> myObjects = database->getObjects(20, 40); // fetch and construct object 20 to 40 from the db
// ...some time later
// screen filling time!
foreach (const MyObject& o, myObjects) {
o->getInt("status", 0); // == db request
o->getString("comment", "no comment!"); // == db request
// about 3 more of these
}
At first glance it looks like you have two conflicting goals: Query speed, but always using up-to-date data. Thus you should probably fall back to your needs to help decide here.
1) Your database is nearly static compared to use of the application. In this case use your option 1b and preload all the data. If there's a slim chance that the data may change underneath, just give the user an option to refresh the cache (fully or for a particular subset of data). This way the slow access is in the hands of the user.
2) The database is changing fairly frequently. In this case "perhaps" an SQL database isn't right for your needs. You may need a higher performance dynamic database that pushes updates rather than requiring a pull. That way your application would get notified when underlying data changed and you would be able to respond quickly. If that doesn't work however, you want to concoct your query to minimize the number of DB library and I/O calls. For example if you execute a sequence of select statements your results should have all the appropriate data in the order you requested it. You just have to keep track of what the corresponding select statements were. Alternately if you can use a looser query criteria so that it returns more than one row for your simple query that ought to help performance as well.
I am currently faced with the task of importing around 200K items from a custom CMS implementation into Sitecore. I have created a simple import page which connects to an external SQL database using Entity Framework and I have created all the required data templates.
During a test import of about 5K items I realized that I needed to find a way to make the import run a lot faster so I set about to find some information about optimizing Sitecore for this purpose. I have concluded that there is not much specific information out there so I'd like to share what I've found and open the floor for others to contribute further optimizations. My aim is to create some kind of maintenance mode for Sitecore that can be used when importing large columes of data.
The most useful information I found was on Mark Cassidy's blogpost http://intothecore.cassidy.dk/2009/04/migrating-data-into-sitecore.html. At the bottom of this post he provides a few tips for when you are running an import.
If migrating large quantities of data, try and disable as many Sitecore event handlers and whatever else you can get away with.
Use BulkUpdateContext()
Don't forget your target language
If you can, make the fields shared and unversioned. This should help migration execution speed.
The first thing I noticed out of this list was the BulkUpdateContext class as I had never heard of it. I quickly understood why as a search on the SND forum and in the PDF documentation returned no hits. So imagine my surprise when i actually tested it out and found that it improves item creation/deletes by at least ten fold!
The next thing I looked at was the first point where he basically suggests creating a version of web config that only has the bare essentials needed to perform the import. So far I have removed all events related to creating, saving and deleting items and versions. I have also removed the history engine and system index declarations from the master database element in web config as well as any custom events, schedules and search configurations. I expect that there are a lot of other things I could look to remove/disable in order to increase performance. Pipelines? Schedules?
What optimization tips do you have?
Incidentally, BulkUpdateContext() is a very misleading name - as it really improves item creation speed, not item updating speed. But as you also point out, it improves your import speed massively :-)
Since I wrote that post, I've added a few new things to my normal routines when doing imports.
Regularly shrink your databases. They tend to grow large and bulky. To do this; first go to Sitecore Control Panel -> Database and select "Clean Up Database". After this, do a regular ShrinkDB on your SQL server
Disable indexes, especially if importing into the "master" database. For reference, see http://intothecore.cassidy.dk/2010/09/disabling-lucene-indexes.html
Try not to import into "master" however.. you will usually find that imports into "web" is a lot faster, mostly because this database isn't (by default) connected to the HistoryManager or other gadgets
And if you're really adventureous, there's a thing you could try that I'd been considering trying out myself, but never got around to. They might work, but I can't guarantee that they will :-)
Try removing all your field types from App_Config/FieldTypes.config. The theory here is, that this should essentially disable all of Sitecore's special handling of the content of these fields (like updating the LinkDatabase and so on). You would need to manually trigger a rebuild of the LinkDatabase when done with the import, but that's a relatively small price to pay
Hope this helps a bit :-)
I'm guessing you've already hit this, but putting the code inside a SecurityDisabler() block may speed things up also.
I'd be a lot more worried about how Sitecore performs with this much data... assuming you only do the import once, who cares how long that process takes. Is this going to be a regular occurrence?
I have a Windows Phone 7 app that (currently) calls an OData service to get data, and throws the data into a listbox. It is horribly slow right now. The first thing I can think of is because OData returns way more data than I actually need.
What are some suggestions/best practices for speeding up the fetching of data in a Windows Phone 7 app? Anything I could be doing in the app to speed up the retrieval of data and putting into in front of the user faster?
Sounds like you've already got some clues about what to chase.
Some basic things I'd try are:
Make your HTTP requests as small as possible - if possible, only fetch the entities and fields you absolutely need.
Consider using multiple HTTP requests to fetch the data incrementally instead of fetching everything in one go (this can, of course, actually make the app slower, but generally makes the app feel faster)
For large text transfers, make sure that the content is being zipped for transfer (this should happen at the HTTP level)
Be careful that the XAML rendering the data isn't too bloated - large XAML structure repeated in a list can cause slowness.
When optimising, never assume you know where the speed problem is - always measure first!
Be careful when inserting images into a list - the MS MarketPlace app often seems to stutter on my phone - and I think this is caused by the image fetch and render process.
In addition to Stuart's great list, also consider the format of the data that's sent.
Check out this blog post by Rob Tiffany. It discusses performance based on data formats. It was written specifically with WCF in mind but the points still apply.
As an extension to the Stuart's list:
In fact there are 3 areas - communication, parsing, UI. Measure them separately:
Do just the communication with the processing switched off.
Measure parsing of fixed ODATA-formatted string.
Whether you believe or not it can be also the UI.
For example a bad usage of ProgressBar can result in dramatical decrease of the processing speed. (In general you should not use any UI animations as explained here.)
Also, make sure that the UI processing does not block the data communication.