Hi Martin, While I analyze the data, let me ask you if it is possible to perform another check (similar in a way to disabling data-index like you do) Can you switch to MongoDB persistence and check if the same degradation that is there for postgres remains? I do not know if this is feasible but will certainly indicate the problem is on the postgres storage layer and I do not have a clear prediction of what we will see when doing this switch.
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:37 PM Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Francisco, > > thanks for your work on this important topic! > > I would like to share some test results here, which might help to improve > the codebase even further. I am using the jmeter based test case from Pere > and Enrique (thanks guys!) [1] which uses a load of 30 threads to > > 1) start a new process instance (POST) > 2) retrieve tasks for a user (GET) > 3) fetches task details (GET) > 4) complete a task (POST) > 5) execute a query on data-audit > > With this test setup, I noticed that the performance for the POST > requests, in particular the one to start a new process instance, degrades > over time - see graph [2]. If I run the same test without data-index, then > there is no such performance degradation [3]. You can find a thread dump > captured a few minutes into the first test here [4] that might help to see > some of the contention points. > > I'd appreciate if you could take a look and see if there is something that > can be further improved based on your previous work. If you need any > additional data, let me know, but otherwise it is straightforward to run > the jmeter test as well. > > Thanks, > Martin > > [1] https://github.com/pefernan/job-service-refactor-test/ > [2] > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gqn-ixE05kXv2jdssAUlnMuUVcHxIYZ0/view?usp=sharing > [3] > https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gVNyb4JYg_bA18bNhY9dEDbPn3TOxL7/view?usp=sharing > [4] > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVrtsO49gCvUlnaC9AUAtkVKTm4PbdUv/view?usp=sharing > > ________________________________________ > From: Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ftira...@redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:13 AM > To: dev@kie.apache.org > Cc: Pere Fernandez Perez > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with data-index > persistence addon > > Hi Alex, > I did not take times (which depends on a number of variables that > drastically change between environments), but verify that the number of > updates has been reduced drastically without losing functionality, which is > objectively a good thing. If before the change, for every node executed, we > have an update for every node previously executed, so if a process have 50 > nodes to execute, we were performing nearly 50*51/2 updates, which gives us > a total of 1275 updates, now we have just one for every node being > executed, implying a total of 50 updates. > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:18 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote: > > > Francisco, > > > > I noticed that your PR has been merged, but I was expecting (at least > > was my understanding from this thread) that before merging some > > benchmark data would be shared in advance - to assess the cost/benefit > > of such a decent size change. > > > > Do you have any information to share? > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, as intended, now we have one select and one insert/update per node > > > event. > > > I moved the PR as ready for review and give @Pere Fernandez Perez > > > <pefer...@redhat.com> permission to the branch so he can edit it in > the > > > next two weeks (Ill be on PTO) if desired, before merging. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:58 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> > wrote: > > > > > > > Cool, thank you Francisco! > > > > > > > > Did you manage to get some preliminary data about improvements? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:52 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, after some delay because of quarkus 3 migration. Im refining > > this > > > > > draft PR > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1941 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:48 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Any update or new findings on this topic? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 8:38 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > After considering different options to improve performance, we > > feel > > > > that > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is time to "partially" move away from the current Map style > > > > interface ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/blob/main/persistence-commons/persistence-commons-api/src/main/java/org/kie/kogito/persistence/api/Storage.java > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > which was shared with Trusty, to one more suitable for usage > > with a > > > > > > > relational DB like postgresql (but still compatible with big > > table > > > > dbs). > > > > > > > The idea will be to replace generic Storage interface by four > > > > specific > > > > > > > interfaces (which will inherit from a common one that keeps the > > query > > > > > > part > > > > > > > at is it. with get and query methods), that will include the > > required > > > > > > > modification operations for the four DataIndex "domains": > > > > > > processinstance, > > > > > > > usertask, processdefinitions and jobs. Those interfaces will > > define > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > like addNode, addVariable, updateTask, addAttachment..... that > > will > > > > allow > > > > > > > the persistent layer implementation to just update the needed > > info > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > DB (for example, for addNode in Postgres, just insert a row > into > > > > nodes > > > > > > > table, for addNode in Mongo, basically the same atomic upsert > > > > operation > > > > > > > that is currently done). Therefore, we increase performance for > > > > Postgres > > > > > > > and keep the current one for Mongo. The current DB schemas > won't > > be > > > > > > > touched. > > > > > > > Since the code change is large, I do not think I'll be able to > > have > > > > the > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > ready till next week. > > > > > > > But before starting, please let me know if that approach is > fine > > for > > > > you. > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 6:55 PM Alex Porcelli < > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Francisco to getting deeper on this… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to see the results of your suggested > > improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 9:40 AM Francisco Javier Tirado > Sarti < > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to attach the queries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 3:04 PM Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > > > >> A brief update on this topic. > > > > > > > > >> After doing a simple test with example > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/tree/stable/serverless-workflow-examples/serverless-workflow-data-index-quarkus > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > >> the number of updates over Nodes table is n*n, so we > manage > > to > > > > > > obtain a > > > > > > > > >> perfect quadratic performance degradation. The problem is > > worse > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > >> of Serverless Workflow than in BPMN because we the number > of > > > > nodes > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> greater than the number of states. In that example N is > 16, > > but > > > > for > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> complex workflow it would be certainly large. > > > > > > > > >> I think that this is more related to how we are handling > > JPA in > > > > the > > > > > > > > code, > > > > > > > > >> in particular the mapping from model to entity (basically > > JPA is > > > > > > blind > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> has to update all nodes for every write because it > believes > > the > > > > > > node has > > > > > > > > >> been updated, although it is not) than an issue in the > table > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > >> In fact, when using JPA, separating the server model from > > the > > > > JPA > > > > > > > > entity is > > > > > > > > >> not a good idea, especially if the entity contains > > collections. > > > > I > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > >> to change that without breaking anything. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:10 PM Enrique Gonzalez > Martinez < > > > > > > > > >> egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> After the events split you now will need to create a node > > > > instance > > > > > > > > >>> model instance of making independent from the process > > instance. > > > > > > > > >>> That should do the trick. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Regarding deleting/inserting it was fixed at some point. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> El mar, 21 nov 2023 a las 20:22, Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti > > > > > > > > >>> (<ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > >>> > I have a task to review performance of > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > ProcessInstanceNodeDataEventMerger > > > > > > > > >>> > My idea is to reduce the number of delete inserts when > > > > processing > > > > > > > > >>> events > > > > > > > > >>> > and try to do it incremental. > > > > > > > > >>> > That should improve performance. > > > > > > > > >>> > PS: > > > > > > > > >>> > I was planning to send an e-mail tomorrow announcing > > that in > > > > > > case you > > > > > > > > >>> were > > > > > > > > >>> > already working on a fix for that. I assume you are not > > and I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >>> > sending a PR soon. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 6:09 PM Martin Weiler > > > > > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > I looked into the new examples using data-index > > persistence > > > > > > addon - > > > > > > > > >>> Neus' > > > > > > > > >>> > > PR#1813 [1] for serverless and Pere's branch [2] for > > > > workflow > > > > > > > > (great > > > > > > > > >>> job > > > > > > > > >>> > > both!) - and they work without issues using single > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > >>> However, under > > > > > > > > >>> > > some load (I used 'ab' for testing with a light > > > > concurrency of > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > >>> parallel > > > > > > > > >>> > > requests) I ran into the following problems: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (1) Large number of insert/delete calls (eg. for > tables > > > > such as > > > > > > > > >>> nodes, > > > > > > > > >>> > > definitions, etc) > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (2) Hibernate OptimisticLockExceptions / > > > > StaleStateExceptions > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (3) DB deadlocks > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (4) Error responses, slow response times > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > The reason I am reaching out with this topic here is > to > > > > find > > > > > > out if > > > > > > > > >>> we are > > > > > > > > >>> > > aware of this issue, and if someone is already > looking > > > > into or > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > >>> > > assigned to it? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >>> > > Martin > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > [1] > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/pull/1813 > > > > > > > > >>> > > [2] > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pefernan/kogito-examples/tree/example_data-index_persistence > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > >>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
