Yeah do we have concrete examples of places where asyncio would be a non-starter? Are there enough of these examples to kill this idea? I really don't like the idea of needing to maintain both sync and async.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 1:39 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > > we definitely need a way to opt-out for the ones who aren't interested > > I disagree, what I propose is to infer the async connection from the sync > configuration using a translation method, with the possibility of providing > the async connection configuration explicitly. This will help to completely > migrate the REST API and web server to the async version without > duplicating the code. > > > We should have a seamless fallback to sync if async doesn't work for > whatever reasons > > For the async version of connections/variables, we will use the sync method > wrapped by sync_to_async in the base class, in this case, the async methods > will work in the custom secrets backends without any issues and users can > override the async methods for better implementation. > > > are we limiting the scope to lets say connections + variables and > expanding based on the results in the long term? > > This needs to be implemented step by step, the first step is to add > integration to the different providers and DB, then implement an async > version for the secrets backends, then migrate the REST API and web server, > and later migrate our official executors, which will need also integrating > other tools like kubernetes-asyncio, and async integration for celery. > > > I think this needs to be an all or nothing thing > > Here are some of the available drivers > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36504#issuecomment-1872653755, I > have already tested one for each database, so we will have async support > for all supported databases. > > > having to maintain sync and async versions of functions/features is a > non-starter in my mind; > > During the migration, we will have both sync and async endpoints in the API > and the webserver (they will be migrated one by one and not at the same > time), but without any code duplication, in the worst case, instead of > duplicating a method, we can use sync_to_async, and optimize it later > after migrating all endpoints that use it. > But for Secrets Backends, we may have some duplicated code when it is not > possible to export it to a common method shared between sync and async > versions. > > > how can we keep one codenase bit cooe with sqlite? > > For my PoC, I used https://github.com/omnilib/aiosqlite and it worked > without any issues. > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:08 PM Daniel Standish > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > If nothing else, write an ugly adapter using sync_to_async? > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 1:06 PM Daniel Standish < > > daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > > > > > https://github.com/omnilib/aiosqlite maybe? > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 1:03 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > > > <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> I understand the „all-in“ approach as we were dropping MSSQL… how can > we > > >> keep one codenase bit cooe with sqlite? I assume we must support this > at > > >> least for dev setups. > > >> > > >> Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > >> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 8:30:18 PM > > >> To: dev@airflow.apache.org <dev@airflow.apache.org> > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Asynchronous SQLAlchemy > > >> > > >> Yep. If we can make both Postgres and MySQL work with Async - I am > also > > >> all > > >> for the "All" approach. If it means that we need to support only > certain > > >> drivers and certain versions of the DBs - so be it. As mentioned in my > > >> original comments (long time ago when we had MSSQL support) - this was > > not > > >> really possible back then - but now, by getting rid of Mssql and if we > > >> have > > >> the right drivers for mysql, it should be possible - I guess. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 8:17 PM Daniel Standish > > >> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I wholeheartedly agree with Ash that it should be all or nothing. > And > > >> > *all* sounds > > >> > better to me :) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:54 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I’m all in favour of async SQLAlchemy. We’ve built two products > > >> > > exclusively at @ Astronomer that use sqlalchemy+psycopg3+async and > > >> love > > >> > it. > > >> > > Async does take a bit of a learning curve, but SQLA has done it > > nicely > > >> > and > > >> > > it works really well. > > >> > > > > >> > > I think this needs to be an all or nothing thing — having to > > maintain > > >> > sync > > >> > > and async versions of functions/features is a non-starter in my > > mind; > > >> > it’d > > >> > > just be a worryingly large amount of duplicated work. Given the > only > > >> DBs > > >> > we > > >> > > support now is postgres and mysql then I can’t think of any reason > > >> users > > >> > > should even care — they give it a DSN and that’s the end of their > > >> > > involvement. > > >> > > > > >> > > Amogh: I don’t understand what you mean by point 3 below. > > >> > > > > >> > > -ash > > >> > > > > >> > > > On 8 Apr 2024, at 05:31, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I checked the content and the PR that you attached. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The results do seem promising and I like the general idea of > this > > >> > > approach. > > >> > > > But as Jarek > > >> > > > also mentioned on the PR: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. Not everyone might be on the board to go all async due to > > certain > > >> > > > limitations around > > >> > > > access to the drivers, or corporate limitations. So, we > definitely > > >> > need a > > >> > > > way to opt-out > > >> > > > for the ones who aren't interested. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. We should have a seamless fallback to sync if async doesn't > > work > > >> for > > >> > > > whatever reasons. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. Are we going all in or are we limiting the scope to lets say > > >> > > > connections + variables and expanding > > >> > > > based on the results in the long term? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Looking forward to improvements async can bring in! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks & Regards, > > >> > > > Amogh Desai > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:13 AM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> The Metadata Database is the brain of Airflow, where all > > scheduling > > >> > > >> decisions, cross-communication, synchronization between > > components, > > >> > and > > >> > > >> management via the web server, are made using this database. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> One option to optimize the DB queries is to merge many into a > > >> single > > >> > > query > > >> > > >> to reduce latency and overall time, but this is not always > > possible > > >> > > because > > >> > > >> the queries are sometimes completely independent, and it is > > >> > > impossible/too > > >> > > >> complicated to merge them. But in this case, we have another > > option > > >> > > which > > >> > > >> is running them concurrently since they are independent. The > only > > >> way > > >> > > to do > > >> > > >> this currently is to use multithreading (the sync_to_async > > >> decorator > > >> > > >> creates a thread and waits for it using an asyncio coroutine), > > >> which > > >> > is > > >> > > >> already a good start, but by using the asyncio extension for > > >> > sqlalchemy > > >> > > we > > >> > > >> will be able to create thousands of lightweight coroutines with > > the > > >> > same > > >> > > >> amount of resources as a few threads, which will also help to > > >> reduce > > >> > > >> resources consumption. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A few months ago I started a PoC to add support for this > > extension > > >> and > > >> > > >> implement an asynchronous version of connections and variables > to > > >> be > > >> > > able > > >> > > >> to get/set them from triggers without blocking the event loop > and > > >> > > affecting > > >> > > >> the performance of the triggerer, and the result was > impressive ( > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fairflow%2Fpull%2F36504&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7C453e379d0e284252391708dc57f9fd87%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638481978411968167%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LfaqvpAcffa830qqp1fLdsbKuVkpgqsGOSt%2FrnQL2Wk%3D&reserved=0 > > >> )<https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36504>. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I see a good opportunity to improve the performance of our REST > > API > > >> > and > > >> > > web > > >> > > >> server (for example > > >> > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fairflow%2Fissues%2F38776&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7C453e379d0e284252391708dc57f9fd87%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638481978411976153%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FDHZsKZ6d5%2BTrfI43pVY%2BSHJ2RsMW93MpxIqidhlSoE%3D&reserved=0 > > >> )<https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/38776>, > > >> > > >> knowing that we can mix sync and async endpoints, which will > help > > >> for > > >> > a > > >> > > >> smooth migration. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I also think that it will be possible (and very useful) to > > migrate > > >> > some > > >> > > of > > >> > > >> our executors to a full asynchronous version to improve their > > >> > > performance > > >> > > >> (kubernetes and celery) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I use the sqlalchemy asyncio extension in many personal and > > company > > >> > > >> projects, and I'm very happy with it, but I would like to hear > > from > > >> > > others > > >> > > >> if they have any positive or negative feedback about it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I will create a new AIP for integrating the asyncio extension > of > > >> > > >> sqlaclhemy, and other following AIPs to migrate/support each > > >> component > > >> > > once > > >> > > >> the first one is implemented, but first, I prefer to check what > > the > > >> > > >> community and other committers think about this integration. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
