Dmitry, Glad to hear the bucket size helped! Please let me know how it goes. If you have good results, maybe we can find a clean way to facilitate directly doing the work done by create work.
Robert On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 18:11, Dmitry <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, thanks a lot for your sugestions! > Increasing bucket size made a huge difference. Need to study > theoretical part... and find the optimal bucket size for 50/sec. > > yep, I use creatework directly without fanout. I will try to insert > 'work' models within my original data transaction and compare the > performance. > > On Nov 9, 3:14 am, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Dmitry, >> I am working on getting some decent documentation about when you >> might want to use fanout versus directly using creatwork. And, about >> usage in general. If I am dealing with one or two aggregations I >> usually use creatework directly. You can only insert five >> transactional tasks in one database transaction, so with four you >> could directly use creatework eliminating a fanout task. >> >> As far as rates go, I have been using a rate of 35/s and bucket size >> of 40. However, I also get periodic queue backups. I think the max >> rate / sec is currently 50, but I thought there was an announcement it >> was getting increased (maybe I am just remembering the increase to >> 50/sec announcement though). You might want to bump your rate up to >> 50/sec. I always use a dedicated queue for creatework and aggregation >> tasks. In one of my apps I use multiple queues to get a bit higher >> throughput. >> >> I generally prefer to use creatework tasks; they cleanly handle any >> failures that occur and keeps my primary processing running as fast as >> possible. However, when I first started using this type of >> aggregation technique I created the 'work' models and attempted to >> insert the aggregator task (non-transactionaly!) within my primary >> transaction. If your primary processing is within tasks, and your >> tasks are fast enough, give it a shot. Converting CreateWorkHandler >> to something you can use directly should not be a big deal. >> >> Robert >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 18:14, Dmitry <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Robert, >> >> > What queue configuration do you use for your system? >> > I came to another problem. I usually process several feeds in parallel >> > and can insert up to 20-30 new items to the database. With 4 >> > aggregators it's >80 create_work tasks in one moment. So after a >> > minute I can have up to 1000 tasks in queue... so I have up to 5 >> > minutes delay in processing. >> >> > It seems that for initial aggregation I should insert create work >> > models not in tasks. >> > I messed up again:) >> >> > On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dmitry, >> >> I finally got the time to make these changes. Let me know if that >> >> works for your use-case. >> >> >> I really appreciate all of your suggestions and help with this. >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> 2010/11/3 Dmitry <[email protected]>: >> >> >> > oops I read expression in wrong direction. This will definitely work! >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 7:43 pm, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Dmitry, >> >> >> š Right, I know those will cause problems. So what about my suggested >> >> >> solution of using: >> >> >> >> šif not re.match("^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+$", task_name): >> >> >> š š š task_name = šsha1_hash(task_name) >> >> >> >> That should correctly handle your use cases, since the full name will >> >> >> be hashed. >> >> >> >> Are there issues with that solution I am not seeing? >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:52, Dmitry <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Robert, >> >> >> >> > You will get into the trouble with these aggregations: >> >> >> >> > urls: >> >> >> > http://ÐÒÁ×ÉÔÅÌØÓÔ×Ï.ÒÆ/search/?phrase=ÎÁÌÏǧion=gov_events -> >> >> >> > httpsearchphrase >> >> >> > http://ÐÒÁ×ÉÔÅÌØÓÔ×Ï.ÒÆ/search/?phrase=ÐÒÅÚÉÄÅÎÔ§ion=gov_events >> >> >> > -> >> >> >> > httpsearchphrase >> >> >> >> > or usernames: >> >> >> > ÍÓÔÉÔÅÌØ2000 -> 2000 >> >> >> > ÔÅÓÔ2000 -> 2000 >> >> >> >> > but anyway in most cases your approach will work well:) You can leave >> >> >> > it up to the user (add some kind of flag "use_hash"). >> >> >> >> > or we can try to url encode strings: >> >> >> > urllib.quote(task_name.encode('utf-8')) >> >> >> > http3AD0BFD180D0B0D0B2D0B8D182D0B5D0BBD18CD181D182D0B2D0BED180D184search3Fphrase3DD0BDD0B0D0BBD0BED0B3 >> >> >> > http3AD0BFD180D0B0D0B2D0B8D182D0B5D0BBD18CD181D182D0B2D0BED180D184search3Fphrase3DD0BFD180D0B5D0B7D0B8D0B4D0B5D0BDD182 >> >> >> >> > but this is not better that hash :-D >> >> >> >> > thanks >> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 7:13 am, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey Dmitry, >> >> >> >> š I am sure the "fix" in that commit is _not_ a good idea. >> >> >> >> šOriginally >> >> >> >> I stuck it in because I use entity keys as the task-name, sometimes >> >> >> >> they contains characters not allowed in task-names. šI actually >> >> >> >> debated for several days about pushing that update out; šfinally I >> >> >> >> decide to push and hope someone would notice and offer their >> >> >> >> thoughts. >> >> >> >> >> š I like your idea a lot. šBut, for many aggregations I like to use >> >> >> >> entity keys, it makes it possible for me to visually see what a task >> >> >> >> is doing. šWhat do you think about something like the following >> >> >> >> approach: >> >> >> >> >> š if not re.match("^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+$", task_name): >> >> >> >> š š š task_name = sha1_hash(task_name) >> >> >> >> >> That should allow 'valid' names to remain as-is, but it will safely >> >> >> >> encode non-valid task-names. šDo you think that is an acceptable >> >> >> >> method? >> >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot for your feedback. >> >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 07:15, Dmitry <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Robert, >> >> >> >> >>> Regarding your latest commit: >> >> >> >> >>> # TODO: find a better solution for cleaning up the name. >> >> >> >>> task_name = re.sub('[^a-zA-Z0-9-]', '', task_name)[:500] >> >> >> >> >>> Don't think this is a good idea:) For example I have unicode >> >> >> >>> characters in aggregation value. In this case regexp will return >> >> >> >>> nothing. >> >> >> >>> I use sha1 hash now... but there's also a little possibility of >> >> >> >>> collision >> >> >> >> >>> sha1_hash(self.agg_name) >> >> >> >> >>> def utf8encoded(data): >> >> >> >>> šif data is None: >> >> >> >>> š šreturn None >> >> >> >>> šif isinstance(data, unicode): >> >> >> >>> š šreturn unicode(data).encode('utf-8') >> >> >> >>> šelse: >> >> >> >>> š šreturn data >> >> >> >> >>> def sha1_hash(value): >> >> >> >>> šreturn hashlib.sha1(utf8encoded(value)).hexdigest() >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 24, 9:26 pm, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> Hi Dmitry, >> >> >> >>>> š Glad to hear it was helpful! šNot sure when you checked it out >> >> >> >>>> last, >> >> >> >>>> but I made a number of good (I think) improvements in the last >> >> >> >>>> couple >> >> >> >>>> days, such as continuations to allow splitting large groups of >> >> >> >>>> work >> >> >> >>>> up. >> >> >> >> >>>> Robert >> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 07:57, Dmitry <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> Robert, >> >> >> >> >>>>> You grouping_with_date_rollup.py example was extremely helpful. >> >> >> >>>>> Thanks >> >> >> >>>>> a lot again! :) >> >> >> >> >>>>> On Oct 14, 8:47 pm, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> Hey Carles, >> >> >> >>>>>> š Glad it seems helpful. šI am hoping to get time today to push >> >> >> >>>>>> out >> >> >> >>>>>> some revisions and sample code. >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Robert >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:50, Carles Gonzalez >> >> >> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>> Robert, I took a brief inspection at your code and seems very >> >> >> >>>>>>> cool. Exactly >> >> >> >>>>>>> what i was lloking for for my report generation and such. >> >> >> >>>>>>> I'm looking forward for more examples, but it seems a very >> >> >> >>>>>>> valuable addition >> >> >> >>>>>>> for our toolbox. >> >> >> >>>>>>> Thanks a lot! >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Carles Gonzalez >> >> >> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Neat! I'm going to see this code, hopefully I'll understand >> >> >> >>>>>>>> something :) >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, Robert Kluin >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Hey Dmitry, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> š šIn case it might help, I pushed some code to bitbucket. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> šAt the >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> moment I would (personally) say the code is not too pretty, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> but it >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> works well. š:) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> š š šhttp://bitbucket.org/thebobert/slagg >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> š Sorry it does not really have good documentation at the >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> moment, but >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the basic example I threw together will give you a >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> good idea >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> of how to use it. šI need to do another cleanup pass over >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> the API to >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> make a few more refinements. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> š šI pulled this code out of one of my apps, and tried to >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> quickly >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> refactor it to be a bit more generic. šWe are currently using >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> basically the same code in three apps to do some really >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> complex >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> calculations. šAs soon as I get time I will get an example >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> up showing >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> how to use it for neat stuff, like overall, yearly, monthly, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> and daily >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> aggregates across multiple values (like total dollars and >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> quantity). >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> The cool thing is that you can do all of those aggregations >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> across >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> various groupings, like customer, company, contact, and >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> sales-person, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> at once. šI'll get that code pushed out in the next few days. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> š Would love to get some feedback on it. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Robert >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 17:26, Dmitry >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Ben, thanks for your code! I'm trying to understand all >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> this stuff >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> too... >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Robert, any success with your "library"? May be you've >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> already done >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> all stuff we are trying to implement... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> p.s. where is Brett S.:) would like to hear his comments on >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> this >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 1:49 pm, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your insights. I would love feedback on this >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> implementation >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> (Brett S. suggested we send in our code for >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> this)http://pastebin.com/3pUhFdk8 >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> This implementation is for just one materialized view row >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> at a time >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. a simple counter, no presence markers). Hopefully >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> putting an ETA >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> on the transactional task will relieve the write pressure, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> since >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be an old update with an out-of-date >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sequence number >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> and be >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
