I am working on a large project that does SPC analysis and have 1000's of different unrelated dataframe objects. Does anyone know of a module for storing objects in memory? I could use a python dictionary but would like it more elaborate and functional mechanisms like locking, thread safe, who has it and a waiting list etc? I was thinking of creating something that behaves like my local public library system. The way it checks in and out books to one owner ...etc.
HDF5-pytables is a pretty good storage back-end for pandas.
Pytables can expand to be managed like a file system BUT care must be taken if you need any kind of multi-access (if you really need that you should use a traditional database that provides these features).
Redis with redis-py is one solution. Redis is really fast and there are nice Python bindings. Pytables, as mentioned above, is a good choice as well. PyTables is HDF5, and is really really fast.
Related
I have a python process serving as a WSGI-apache server. I have many copies of this process running on each of several machines. About 200 megabytes of my process is read-only python data. I would like to place these data in a memory-mapped segment so that the processes could share a single copy of those data. Best would be to be able to attach to those data so they could be actual python 2.7 data objects rather than parsing them out of something like pickle or DBM or SQLite.
Does anyone have sample code or pointers to a project that has done this to share?
This post by #modelnine on StackOverflow provides a really great comprehensive answer to this question. As he mentioned, using threads rather than process-forking in your webserver can significantly lesson the impact of this. I ran into a similar problem trying to share extremely-large NumPy arrays between CLI Python processes using some type of shared memory a couple of years ago, and we ended up using a combination of a sharedmem Python extension to share data between the workers (which proved to leak memory in certain cases, but, it's fixable probably). A read-only mmap() technique might work for you, but I'm not sure how to do that in pure-python (NumPy has a memmapping technique explained here). I've never found any clear and simple answers to this question, but hopefully this can point you in some new directions. Let us know what you end up doing!
It's difficult to share actual python objects because they are bound to the process address space. However, if you use mmap, you can create very usable shared objects. I'd create one process to pre-load the data, and the rest could use it. I found quite a good blog post that describes how it can be done: http://blog.schmichael.com/2011/05/15/sharing-python-data-between-processes-using-mmap/
Since it's read-only data you won't need to share any updates between processes (since there won't be any updates) I propose you just keep a local copy of it in each process.
If memory constraints is an issue you can have a look at using multiprocessing.Value or multiprocessing.Array without locks for this: https://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html#shared-ctypes-objects
Other than that you'll have to rely on an external process and some serialising to get this done, I'd have a look at Redis or Memcached if I were you.
One possibility is to create a C- or C++-extension that provides a Pythonic interface to your shared data. You could memory map 200MB of raw data, and then have the C- or C++-extension provide it to the WSGI-service. That is, you could have regular (unshared) python objects implemented in C, which fetch data from some kind of binary format in shared memory. I know this isn't exactly what you wanted, but this way the data would at least appear pythonic to the WSGI-app.
However, if your data consists of many many very small objects, then it becomes important that even the "entrypoints" are located in the shared memory (otherwise they will waste too much memory). That is, you'd have to make sure that the PyObject* pointers that make up the interface to your data, actually themselves point to the shared memory. I.e, the python objects themselves would have to be in shared memory. As far as I can read the official docs, this isn't really supported. However, you could always try "handcrafting" python objects in shared memory, and see if it works. I'm guessing it would work, until the Python interpreter tries to free the memory. But in your case, it won't, since it's long-lived and read-only.
I'm working on a project where I crawl and re-organize huge number of data into a result text file. Previously I used dictionary to store temporary data, but as the data volume increased the process slowed down because of memory usage and dictionary got useless.
Since process speed is not so important in my case, I'm trying to replace dictionary to file but I'm not sure how can I easily move file pointer to appropriate position and read up required data. In dictionary I can easily refer to any data. I would like to achieve the same but in file.
I'm thinking to use mmap and write my own functions to move file pointer where I want. Does Python have a built-in or 3rd party module for such operations?
Any other theoretical approach is welcome.
I think you are now trying to reinvent a key-value database.
Maybe the easiest thing would be to check if sqlite3 module would offer you what you need. Using a readymade database is easier than rolling your own!
Of course, sqlite3 is not a key-value DB (on the surface), so if you need something even simpler, have a look at LMDB and its Python bindings: http://lmdb.readthedocs.org/en/release/
It is as lightweight and fast as it gets. It is probably close to the fastest way to achieve what you want.
It should be noted that there is no such thing as an optimal key-value database. There are several aspects to consider. At least:
Do you read a lot or write a lot?
What are the key and value sizes?
Do you need transactions/crash-proof?
Do you have duplicate keys (one key, several values)?
Do you want to have sorted keys?
Do you want to read the data out in the same order it is inserted?
What is your database size (MB, GB, TB, PB)?
Are you constrained on IO or CPU?
For example, LMDB I suggested above is very good in read-intensive tasks, not so much in write-intensive tasks. It offers transactions, keeps keys in sorted order and is crash-proof (limited by the underlying file system). However, if you need to write your database often, LMDB may not be the best choice.
On the other hand, SQLite is not the perfect choice to this task - theoretically speking. In practice, it is built in into the standard Python distribution and is thus easy to use. It may provide adequate performance, and it may thus be the best choice.
There are numerous high-quality databases out there. By not mentioning them I do not try to give the impression that the DBs mentioned in this answer are the only good alternatives. Most database managers have a very good reason for their existence. While there are some that are a bit outdated, most have their own sweet spots in the application area.
The field is constantly changing. There are both completely new databases available and old database systems are updated. This should be kept in mind when reading old benchmarks. Also, the type of HW used has its impact; a computer with a SSD disk, a cloud computing instance, and a traditional computer with a HDD behave quite differently performance-wise.
I use Redis (redis-py) inside my Python platform. Recently it was suggested that I switch to an ORM.
E.g.: python-stdnet, rom or redisco
Is use of ORMs considered bad practice in the NoSQL world?
Ultimately the question boils down to at what layer do you want to write code.
Do you want to write code that manipulates data structures in a remote database, or do you want to write higher-level code that uses the abstractions built on top of those data structures? You can think of it as a similar question about relational databases as do you want to write SQL, or do you want to write higher-level code?
Personally, despite using rom myself for a variety of tasks (I am the author), I also directly manipulate Redis in the same projects where it makes sense.
Comments pointing out that the R in ORM is for relational are technically correct. That doesn't mean there aren't valid uses and reasons for libraries that abstract redis away.
There are some great libraries that make interfacing with a redis feel much nicer and more idiomatic to the language you are using. For ruby libraries like ohm or redis-native_hash (disclosure: I wrote that one) do just that. For python there are tools like redisco and surely others. These make persisting objects to redis very simple and make working with redis feel much more ruby-ish or python-ish.
Here are a few more benefits from using even the most basic abstraction, like a very thin wrapper you might write and keep in your application:
Switching redis clients will be easier. Maybe you'll never do this, but if you did, changing your calls to redis in one place (your wrapper) is much simpler than changing them everywhere you use redis.
Implementing things you might need for scaling, like sharding or connection pooling, is likely going to be easier if your calls are made through some abstraction.
Replacing redis with some other key/value store or data structure server would be simpler if an abstraction is in place.
I'm not advocating using an object mapping library or building your own abstraction, just pointing out there are valid reasons why you would. Its up to you to evaluate your needs and pick what works best for you. There is nothing wrong with calling redis directly either.
I am working with some network simulator. After making some extensions to it, I need to make a lot of different simulations and tests. I need to record:
simulation scenario configurations
values of some parameters (e.g. buffer sizes, signal qualities, position) per devices per time unit t
final results computed from those recorded values
Second data is needed to perform some visualization after simulation was performed (simple animation, showing some statistics over time).
I am using Python with matplotlib etc. for post-processing the data and for writing a proper app (now considering pyQt or Django, but this is not the topic of the question). Now I am wondering what would be the best way to store this data?
My first guess was to use XML files, but it can be too much overhead from the XML syntax (I mean, files can grow up to very big sizes, especially for the second part of the data type). So I tried to design a database... But this also seems to me to be not the proper way... Maybe a mix of both?
I have tried to find some clues in Google, but found nothing special. Have you ever had a need for storing such data? How have you done that? Is there any "design pattern" for that?
Separate concerns:
Apart from pondering on the technology to use for storing data (DBMS, CSV, or maybe one of the specific formats for scientific data), note that you have three very different kinds of data to manage:
Simulation scenario configurations: these are (typically) rather small, but they need to be simple to edit, simple to re-use, and should allow to reproduce a simulation run. Here, text or code files seem to be a good choice (these should also be version-controlled).
Raw simulation data: this is where you should be really careful if you are concerned with simulation performance, because writing 3 GB of data during a run can take a huge amount of time if implemented badly. One way to proceed would be to use existing file formats for this purpose (see below) and see if they work for you. If not, you can still use a DBMS. Also, it is usually a good idea to include a description of the scenario that generated the data (or at least a reference), as this helps you managing the results.
Data for post-processing: how to store this mostly depends on the post-processing tools. For example, if you already have a class structure for your visualization application, you could define a file format that makes it easy to read in the required data.
Look for existing solutions:
The problem you face (How to manage simulation data?) is fundamental and there are many potential solutions, each coming with certain trade-offs. As you are working in network simulation, check out what capabilities other tools used in your community provide. It could be that their developers ran into problems you are not even anticipating yet (regarding reproducibility etc.), and already found a good solution. For example, you could check out how OMNeT++ is handling simulation output: the simulation configurations are defined in a separate file, results are written to vec and sca files (depending on their nature). As far as I understood your problems with hierarchical data, this is supported as well (vectors get unique IDs and are associated with an attribute of some model entity).
Additional tools already work with these file formats, e.g. to convert them to other formats like CSV/MATLAB files, so you could even think of creating files in the same format (documented here) and to use existing tools/converters for post-processing.
Many other simulation tools will have similar features, so take a look at what would work best for you.
It sounds like you need to record more or less the same kinds of information for each case, so a relational database sounds like a good fit-- why do you think it's "not the proper way"?
If your data fits in a collection of CSV files, you're most of the way to a relational database already! Just store in database tables instead, and you have support for foreign keys and queries. If you go on to implement an object-oriented solution, you can initialize your objects from the database.
If your data structures are well-known and stable AND you need some of the SQL querying / computation features then a light-weight relational DB like SQLite might be the way to go (just make sure it can handle your eventual 3+GB data).
Else - ie, each simulation scenario might need a dedicated data structure to store the results -, and you don't need any SQL feature, then you might be better using a more free-form solution (document-oriented database, OO database, filesystem + csv, whatever).
Note that you can still use a SQL db in the second case, but you'll have to dynamically create tables for each resultset, and of course dynamically create the relevant SQL queries too.
I'm starting on a new scientific project which has a lot of data (millions of entries) I'd like to store in an easily and quickly accessible format. I've come across a number of different potential options, but I'm not sure how to pick amongst them. My data can probably just be stored as a dictionary, or potentially a dictionary of dictionaries. Some potential considerations:
Speed. I can't load all the data off disk every time I start a new script, and I'd like as quick access to random entries as possible.
Ease-of-use. This is python. The storage should feel like python.
Stability/maturity. I'd like something that's currently supported, although something that works well but is still in development would be fine.
Ease of installation. My sysadmin should be able to get this running on our cluster.
I don't really care that much about the size of the storage, but it could be a consideration if an option is really terrible on this front. Also, if it matters, I'll most likely be creating the database once, and thereafter only reading from it.
Some potential options that I've started looking at (see this post):
pyTables
ZopeDB
shove
shelve
redis
durus
Any suggestions on which of these might be better for my purposes? Any better ideas? Some of these have a back-end; any suggestions on which file-system back-end would be best?
Might want to give mongodb a shot - the PyMongo library works with dictionaries and supports most Python types. Easy to install, very performant + scalable. MongoDB (and PyMongo) is also used in production at some big names.
A RDBMS.
Nothing is more realiable than using tables on a well known RDBMS. Postgresql comes to mind.
That automatically gives you some choices for the future like clustering. Also you automatically have a lot of tools to administer your database, and you can use it from other software written in virtually any language.
It is really fast.
In the "feel like python" point, I might add that you can use an ORM. A strong name is sqlalchemy. Maybe with the elixir "extension".
Using sqlalchemy you can leave your user/sysadmin choose which database backend he wants to use. Maybe they already have MySql installed - no problem.
RDBMSs are still the best choice for data storage.
I'm working on such a project and I'm using SQLite.
SQLite stores everything in one file and is part of Python's standard library. Hence, installation and configuration is virtually for free (ease of installation).
You can easily manage the database file with small Python scripts or via various tools. There is also a Firefox plugin (ease of installation / ease-of-use).
I find it very convenient to use SQL to filter/sort/manipulate/... the data. Although, I'm not an SQL expert. (ease-of-use)
I'm not sure if SQLite is the fastes DB system for this work and it lacks some features you might need e.g. stored procedures.
Anyway, SQLite works for me.
if you really just need dictionary-like storage, some of the new key/value or column stores like Cassandra or MongoDB might provide a lot more speed than you'd get with a relational database. Of course if you decide to go with RDBMS, SQLAlchemy is the way to go (disclaimer: I am its creator), but your desired featurelist seems to lean in the direction of "I just want a dictionary that feels like Python" - if you aren't interested in relational queries or strong ACIDity, those facets of RDBMS will probably feel cumbersome.
Sqlite -- it comes with python, fast, widely availible and easy to maintain
If you only need simple (dict like) access mechanisms and need efficiency for processing a lot of data, then HDF5 might be a good option. If you are going to be using numpy then it is really worth considering.
Go with a RDBMS is reliable scalable and fast.
If you need a more scalabre solution and don't need the features of RDBMS, you can go with a key-value store like couchdb that has a good python api.
The NEMO collaboration (building a cosmic neutrino detector underwater) had much of the same problems, and they used mysql and postgresql without major problems.
It really depends on what you're trying to do. An RDBMS is designed for relational data, so if your data is relational, then use one of the various SQL options. But it sounds like your data is more oriented towards a key-value store with very fast random GET operations. If that's the case, compare the benchmarks of the various key-stores, focusing on the GET speed. The ideal key-value store will keep or cache requests in memory, and be able to handle many GET requests concurrently. You may actually want to create your own benchmark suite so you can effectively compare random concurrent GET operations.
Why do you need a cluster? Is the size of each value very large? If not, you shouldn't need a cluster to handle storage of a million entries. But if you're storing large blobs of data, that matters, and you may need something easily supports read slaves and/or transparent partitioning. Some of the key-value stores are document oriented and/or optimized for storing larger values. Redis is technically more storage efficient for larger values due to the indexing overhead required for fast GETs, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's slower. In fact, the extra indexing makes lookups faster.
You're the only one that can truly answer this question, and I strongly recommend putting together a custom benchmark suite to test available options with actual usage scenarios. The data you get from that will give you more insight than anything else.