I use MySQL with MySQLdb module in Python, in Django.
I'm running in autocommit mode in this case (and Django's transaction.is_managed() actually returns False).
I have several processes interacting with the database.
One process fetches all Task models with Task.objects.all()
Then another process adds a Task model (I can see it in a database management application).
If I call Task.objects.all() on the first process, I don't see anything. But if I call connection._commit() and then Task.objects.all(), I see the new Task.
My question is: Is there any caching involved at connection level? And is it a normal behaviour (it does not seems to me)?
This certainly seems autocommit/table locking - related.
If mysqldb implements the dbapi2 spec it will probably have a connection running as one single continuous transaction. When you say: 'running in autocommit mode': do you mean MySQL itself or the mysqldb module? Or Django?
Not intermittently commiting perfectly explains the behaviour you are getting:
i) a connection implemented as one single transaction in mysqldb (by default, probably)
ii) not opening/closing connections only when needed but (re)using one (or more) persistent database connections (my guess, could be Django-architecture-inherited).
ii) your selects ('reads') cause a 'simple read lock' on a table (which means other connections can still 'read' this table but connections wanting to 'write data' can't (immediately) because this lock prevents them from getting an 'exclusive lock' (needed 'for writing') on this table. The writing is thus postponed indefinitely (until it can get a (short) exclusive lock on the table for writing - when you close the connection or manually commit).
I'd do the following in your case:
find out which table locks are on your database during the scenario above
read about Django and transactions here. A quick skim suggests using standard Django functionality implicitely causes commits. This means sending handcrafted SQL maybe won't (insert, update...).
Related
I am running two python files on one cpu in parallel, both of which make use of the same sqlite3 database. I am handling the sqlite3 database using sqlalchemy and my understanding is that sqlalchemy handles all the threading database issues within one app. My question is how to handle the access from the two different apps?
One of my two programs is a flask application and the other is a cronjob which updates the database from time to time.
It seems that even read-only tasks on the sqlite database lock the database, meaning that if both apps want to read or write at the same time I get an error.
OperationalError: (sqlite3.OperationalError) database is locked
Lets assume that my cronjob app runs every 5min. How can I make sure that there are no collisions between my two apps? I could write some read flag into a file which I check before accessing the database, but it seems to me there should be a standard way to do this?
Furthermore I am running my app with gunicorn and in principle it is possible to have multiple jobs running... so I eventually want more than 2 parallel jobs for my flask app...
thanks
carl
It's true. Sqlite isn't built for this kind of application. Sqlite is really for lightweight single-threaded, single-instance applications.
Sqlite connections are one per instance, and if you start getting into some kind of threaded multiplexer (see https://www.sqlite.org/threadsafe.html) it'd be possible, but it's more trouble than it's worth. And there are other solutions that provide that function-- take a look at Postgresql or MySQL. Those DB's are open source, are well documented, well supported, and support the kind of concurrency you need.
I'm not sure how SQLAlchemy handles connections, but if you were using Peewee ORM then the solution is quite simple.
When your Flask app initiates a request, you will open a connection to the DB. Then when Flask sends the response, you close the DB.
Similarly, in your cron script, open a connection when you start to use the DB, then close it when the process is finished.
Another thing you might consider is using SQLite in WAL mode. This can improve concurrency. You set the journaling mode with a PRAGMA query when you open your connection.
For more info, see http://charlesleifer.com/blog/sqlite-small-fast-reliable-choose-any-three-/
When my app runs, I'm very frequently getting issues around the connection pooling (one is "QueuePool limit of size 5 overflow 10 reached", another is "FATAL: remaining connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser connections").
I have a feeling that it's due to some code not closing connections properly, or other code greedily trying to open new ones when it shouldn't, but I'm using the default SQL Alchemy settings so I assume the pool connection defaults shouldn't be unreasonable. We are using the scoped_session(sessionmaker()) way of creating the session so multiple threads are supported.
So my main question is if there is a tool or way to find out where the connections are going? Short of being able to see as soon as a new one is created (that is not supposed to be created), are there any obvious anti-patterns that might result in this effect?
Pyramid is very un-opinionated and with DB connections, there seem to be two main approaches (equally supported by Pyramid it would seem). In our case, the code base when I started the job used one approach (I'll call it the "globals" approach) and we've agreed to switch to another approach that relies less on globals and more on Pythonic idioms.
About our architecture: the application comprises one repo which houses the Pyramid project and then sources a number of other git modules, each of which had their own connection setup. The "globals" way connects to the database in a very non-ORM fashion, eg.:
(in each repo's __init__ file)
def load_database:
global tables
tables['table_name'] = Table(
'table_name', metadata,
Column('column_name', String),
)
There are related globals that are frequently peppered all over the code:
def function_needing_data(field_value):
global db, tables
select = sqlalchemy.sql.select(
[tables['table_name'].c.data], tables['table_name'].c.name == field_value)
return db.execute(select)
This tables variable is latched onto within each git repo which adds some more tables definitions and somehow the global tables manages to work, providing access to all of the tables.
The approach that we've moved to (although at this time, there are parts of both approaches still in the code) is via a centralised connection, binding all of the metadata to it and then querying the db in an ORM approach:
(model)
class ModelName(MetaDataBase):
__tablename__ = "models_table_name"
... (field values)
(function requiring data)
from models.db import DBSession
from models.model_name import ModelName
def function_needing_data(field_value):
return DBSession.query(ModelName).filter(
ModelName.field_value == field_value).all()
We've largely moved the code over to the latter approach which feels right, but perhaps I'm mistaken in my intentions. I don't know if there is anything inherently good or bad in either approach but could this (one of the approaches) be part of the problem so we keep running out of connections? Is there a telltale sign that I should look out for?
It appears that Pyramid functions best (in terms of handling the connection pool) when you use the Pyramid transaction manager (pyramid_tm). This excellent article by Jon Rosebaugh provides some helpful insight into both how Pyramid apps typically set up their database connections and how they should set them up.
In my case, it was necessary to include the pyramid_tm package and then remove a few occurrences where we were manually committing session changes since pyramid_tm will automatically commit changes if it doesn't see a reason not to.
[Update]
I continued to have connection pooling issues although much fewer of them. After a lot of debugging, I found that the pyramid transaction manager (if you're using it correctly) should not be the issue at all. The issue to the other connection pooling issues I had had to do with scripts that ran via cron jobs. A script will release it's connections when it's finished, but bad code design may result in situations where the same script can be opened up and starts running while the previous one is running (causing them both to run slower, slow enough to have both running while a third instance of the script starts and so on).
This is a more language- and database-agnostic error since it stems from poor job-scripting design but it's worth keeping in mind. In my case, the script had an "&" at the end so that each instance started as a background process, waited 10 seconds, then spawned another, rather than making sure the first job started AND completed, then waited 10 seconds, then started another.
Hope this helps when debugging this very frustrating and thorny issue.
I have an SQLAlchemy session in a script. The script is running for a long time, and it only fetches data from database, never updates or inserts.
I get quite a lot of errors like
sqlalchemy.exc.DBAPIError: (TransactionRollbackError) terminating connection due to conflict with recovery
DETAIL: User was holding a relation lock for too long.
The way I understand it, SQLAlchemy creates a transaction with the first select issued, and then reuses it. As my script may run for about an hour, it is very likely that a conflict comes up during the lifetime of that transaction.
To get rid of the error, I could use autocommit in te deprecated mode (without doing anything more), but this is explicitly discouraged by the documentation.
What is the right way to deal with the error? Can I use ORM queries without transactions at all?
I ended up closing the session after (almost) every select, like
session.query(Foo).all()
session.close()
since I do not use autocommit, a new transaction is automatically opened.
I've ran into a strange situation. I'm writing some test cases for my program. The program is written to work on sqllite or postgresqul depending on preferences. Now I'm writing my test code using unittest. Very basically what I'm doing:
def setUp(self):
"""
Reset the database before each test.
"""
if os.path.exists(root_storage):
shutil.rmtree(root_storage)
reset_database()
initialize_startup()
self.project_service = ProjectService()
self.structure_helper = FilesHelper()
user = model.User("test_user", "test_pass", "test_mail#tvb.org",
True, "user")
self.test_user = dao.store_entity(user)
In the setUp I remove any folders that exist(created by some tests) then I reset my database (drop tables cascade basically) then I initialize the database again and create some services that will be used for testing.
def tearDown(self):
"""
Remove project folders and clean up database.
"""
created_projects = dao.get_projects_for_user(self.test_user.id)
for project in created_projects:
self.structure_helper.remove_project_structure(project.name)
reset_database()
Tear down does the same thing except creating the services, because this test module is part of the same suite with other modules and I don't want things to be left behind by some tests.
Now all my tests run fine with sqllite. With postgresql I'm running into a very weird situation: at some point in the execution, which actually differs from run to run by a small margin (ex one or two extra calls) the program just halts. I mean no error is generated, no exception thrown, the program just stops.
Now only thing I can think of is that somehow I forget a connection opened somewhere and after I while it timesout and something happens. But I have A LOT of connections so before I start going trough all that code, I would appreciate some suggestions/ opinions.
What could cause this kind of behaviour? Where to start looking?
Regards,
Bogdan
PostgreSQL based applications freeze because PG locks tables fairly aggressively, in particular it will not allow a DROP command to continue if any connections are open in a pending transaction, which have accessed that table in any way (SELECT included).
If you're on a unix system, the command "ps -ef | grep 'post'" will show you all the Postgresql processes and you'll see the status of current commands, including your hung "DROP TABLE" or whatever it is that's freezing. You can also see it if you select from the pg_stat_activity view.
So the key is to ensure that no pending transactions remain - this means at a DBAPI level that any result cursors are closed, and any connection that is currently open has rollback() called on it, or is otherwise explicitly closed. In SQLAlchemy, this means any result sets (i.e. ResultProxy) with pending rows are fully exhausted and any Connection objects have been close()d, which returns them to the pool and calls rollback() on the underlying DBAPI connection. you'd want to make sure there is some kind of unconditional teardown code which makes sure this happens before any DROP TABLE type of command is emitted.
As far as "I have A LOT of connections", you should get that under control. When the SQLA test suite runs through its 3000 something tests, we make sure we're absolutely in control of connections and typically only one connection is opened at a time (still, running on Pypy has some behaviors that still cause hangs with PG..its tough). There's a pool class called AssertionPool you can use for this which ensures only one connection is ever checked out at a time else an informative error is raised (shows where it was checked out).
One solution I found to this problem was to call db.session.close() before any attempt to call db.drop_all(). This will close the connection before dropping the tables, preventing Postgres from locking the tables.
See a much more in-depth discussion of the problem here.
I'm using psycopg2 for the cherrypy app I'm currently working on and cli & phpgadmin to handle some operations manually. Here's the python code :
#One connection per thread
cherrypy.thread_data.pgconn = psycopg2.connect("...")
...
#Later, an object is created by a thread :
class dbobj(object):
def __init__(self):
self.connection=cherrypy.thread_data.pgconn
self.curs=self.connection.cursor(cursor_factory=psycopg2.extras.DictCursor)
...
#Then,
try:
blabla
self.curs.execute(...)
self.connection.commit()
except:
self.connection.rollback()
lalala
...
#Finally, the destructor is called :
def __del__(self):
self.curs.close()
I'm having a problem with either psycopg or postgres (altough I think the latter is more likely). After having sent a few queries, my connections drop dead. Similarly, phpgadmin -usually- gets dropped as well ; it prompts me to reconnect after having made requests several times. Only the CLI remains persistent.
The problem is, these happen very randomly and I can't even track down what the cause is. I can either get locked down after a few page requests or never really encounter anything after having requested hundreds of pages. The only error I've found in postgres log, after terminating the app is :
...
LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection
LOG: could not send data to client: Broken pipe
LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection
...
I thought of creating a new connection every time a new dbobj instance is created but I absolutely don't want to do this.
Also, I've read that one may run into similar problems unless all transactions are committed : I use the try/except block for every single INSERT/UPDATE query, but I never use it for SELECT queries nor do I want to write even more boilerplate code (btw, do they need to be committed ?). Even if that's the case, why would phpgadmin close down ?
max_connections is set to 100 in the .conf file, so I don't think that's the reason either. A single cherrypy worker has only 10 threads.
Does anyone have an idea where I should look first ?
Psycopg2 needs a commit or rollback after every transaction, including SELECT queries, or it leaves the connections "IDLE IN TRANSACTION". This is now a warning in the docs:
Warning: By default, any query execution, including a simple SELECT will start a transaction: for long-running programs, if no further action is taken, the session will remain “idle in transaction”, an undesirable condition for several reasons (locks are held by the session, tables bloat...). For long lived scripts, either ensure to terminate a transaction as soon as possible or use an autocommit connection.
It's a bit difficult to see exactly where you're populating and accessing cherrypy.thread_data. I'd recommend investigating psycopg2.pool.ThreadedConnectionPool instead of trying to bind one conn to each thread yourself.
Even though I don't have any idea why successful SELECT queries block the connection, spilling .commit() after pretty much every single query that doesn't have to work in conjunction with another solved the problem.