Project

Profile

Help

Task #3848

closed

Consider using integer IDs in Pulp instead of UUIDs

Added by daviddavis over 6 years ago. Updated about 5 years ago.

Status:
CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Platform Release:
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
Sprint:
Quarter:

Description

Motivation

- Better performance[0]
- Less storage required (4 bytes for int vs 16 byes for UUIDs)
- Hrefs would be shorter (e.g. /pulp/api/v3/repositories/1/)
- In line with other apps like Katello

Drawbacks

- Integer ids expose info like how many records there are
- Can’t support sharding or multiple dbs (are we ever going to need this?)

Solution

Switching to integer IDs is pretty easy. We just need to remove a few lines that specify id as a UUID. The default in Django is int ids.

There is one exception or problem though. Jobs in rq/redis are created using task id[1] and this job id needs to be a uuid. I see two possible solutions:

1. We leave task id as a UUID but every other id is an integer
2. We add a job uuid field on task

[0] creating 400,000 units, the non-uuid PK is 30% faster at 42.22 seconds vs. 55.98 seconds. searching through the same 400,000 units, performance is still about 30% faster. Doing a filter for file content units that have a relative_path__startswith={some random letter} (I put UUIDs in all the fields) takes about 0.44 seconds if the model has a UUID pk and about 0.33 seconds if the model has a default Django auto-incrementing PK.
[1] [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/9bfc50d90a24c9d0ac4a93f5718187515b947058/pulpcore/pulpcore/tasking/tasks.py#L187


Related issues

Blocks Python Support - Task #3860: Update code and docs to use int idsMODIFIEDvdusek

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #2

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #3

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #4

Updated by bmbouter over 6 years ago

I agree RQ will need those task ids. I think I prefer option 1. It's helpful to reference our task records using the same id that RQ thinks of the job as and avoiding introducing another identifier.

Actions #6

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Blocks Task #3860: Update code and docs to use int ids added
Actions #7

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Status changed from NEW to POST
  • Assignee set to daviddavis

Added by daviddavis over 6 years ago

Revision 12919c20 | View on GitHub

Switch to using integer IDs instead of UUIDs

fixes #3848 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3848

Added by daviddavis over 6 years ago

Revision 12919c20 | View on GitHub

Switch to using integer IDs instead of UUIDs

fixes #3848 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3848

Actions #8

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

  • Status changed from POST to MODIFIED
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100
Actions #9

Updated by gmbnomis over 6 years ago

I noticed a problem with the change when trying to adapt
pulp_cookbook to the newest version of Pulp core:

The storage path of a PublishedMetadata file contains the pk (see
[0]). With integer IDs, the PK is only known after a .save(). Thus
code like [1] in pulp_cookbook (or [2] on pulp_file) puts
files at ".../None/<relative_path>" regardless of the PK actually
used.

The best I came up with is the following code:

            metadata = PublishedMetadata(
                relative_path=os.path.basename(universe.relative_path),
                publication=publication,
                file=None)
            metadata.save()
            metadata.file = File(open(universe.relative_path, 'rb'))
            metadata.save()

This will generate proper paths, but is a workaround.

[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/storage.py#L144
[1] https://github.com/gmbnomis/pulp_cookbook/blob/master/pulp_cookbook/app/tasks/publishing.py#L49
[2] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/pulp_file/app/tasks/publishing.py#L46

Actions #10

Updated by daviddavis over 6 years ago

Ah great catch. I was wondering how this slipped by but I suppose it does save the published metadata file to a dir called None and I didn't try more than one publish. I've opened https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3878. Thanks for reporting this.

Actions #11

Updated by daviddavis over 5 years ago

  • Sprint/Milestone set to 3.0.0
Actions #12

Updated by bmbouter over 5 years ago

  • Tags deleted (Pulp 3)
Actions #13

Updated by bmbouter about 5 years ago

  • Status changed from MODIFIED to CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE

Also available in: Atom PDF