performance issues due to breadth first execution of grapqhl queries in case of async resolvers during calls burst
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
Évaluation
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Accessibilité débutants
- 25/100
Piste de recherche
Commencez par la preuve de concept asyncio de l'issue et le point d'entrée schema.execute_async, puis suivez la manière dont les champs GraphQL asynchrones sont planifiés et résolus. Comparez ce comportement avec la file de tâches d'asyncio lors de requêtes concurrentes. La tâche sera considérée comme terminée lorsqu'une approche de planification ou de priorité sera convenue et démontrée avec le scénario de rafale signalé, sans dégrader le temps d'exécution ni l'utilisation de la mémoire.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Description
When we receive calls burst we found that the calls "wait each other" (i.e. the first call of the burst waits the last one).
This result in degradation of performances in both time of execution and memory consumption in the server because we have to keep many calls in fly.
This is particularly evident in big graphql queries where the users request many fields and we have several depth in the queries where each level has many async fields.
Just to be TLDR, looking the implementations of graphql and asyncio we understood that this is due to the following:
- graphql breadth first way to schedule and resolve the fields
- asyncio internal FIFO queue of tasks to be executed
As an example lets have queries like that, where data may be like beer vendors and we want for each beer vendor many fields that describes that vendor, a1...a100, b1...b100, ...:
query {
data {
a1 {
b1 {
c1
...
c100
}
...
b100 {
c1
...
c100
}
}
...
a100 { ... }
}
}
If we have n of this calls coming in burst when we arrive to the depth of the c fields we have many many task scheduled in the asyncio queue.
If we check the of order of execution we have that the first query, on each level, "waits" the other queries, because all the queries schedules a lot of tasks.
In the proof of concept, that you may find at the end of the post, you can verify the order of execution of the resolvers.
It could be very nice to have some sort of priority in the order to let the first query not wait the scheduling and resolve of all the queries before ending.
I understand that this is something between graphql and asyncio but i think it could affect the use of graphql in environments receiving many calls.
Fixes, helps and hints in how to improve this would be very appreciated.
import asyncio
from graphene import ObjectType, Schema, String, Field
FIELD_NUMBER = 2
CONCURRENT_QUERIES = 10
def make_resolver(i, j=None):
async def resolver(self, info):
print(f"START query {info.context['query_number']} | a{i} | b{j}")
await asyncio.sleep(0.001)
print(f"END query {info.context['query_number']} | a{i} | b{j}")
return i
return resolver
def create_fields():
fields = {}
for i in range(FIELD_NUMBER):
inner_fields = {}
for j in range(FIELD_NUMBER):
inner_fields[f"b{j}"] = String()
inner_fields[f"resolve_b{j}"] = make_resolver(i, j)
MyType = type(
f"MyType",
(ObjectType,),
inner_fields,
)
fields[f"a{i}"] = Field(MyType)
fields[f"resolve_a{i}"] = make_resolver(i)
return fields
async def make_query(schema, query_number):
inner_query_values = [f"b{i}" for i in range(FIELD_NUMBER)]
query_values = [
"a%s {%s}" % (i, " ".join(inner_query_values)) for i in range(FIELD_NUMBER)
]
query_string = "{ %s }" % (" ".join(query_values),)
await schema.execute_async(
query_string, context_value=dict(query_number=query_number)
)
async def main():
Query = type("Query", (ObjectType,), create_fields())
schema = Schema(query=Query)
await asyncio.gather(*[make_query(schema, i) for i in range(CONCURRENT_QUERIES)])
asyncio.run(main())
- Langage dominant
- Python
- Étoiles
- 531
- Forks
- 147
- Métriques de merge des PR
- Aucune PR mergée en 30 j
Guide de contribution
Aucun guide de contribution indexé pour ce dépôt
Par où commencer
- Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
- Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
- Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
- Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.
Autres issues de graphql-python/graphql-core
-
Difficulté 4/5 3-5 jours Accessibilité débutants 50/100
graphql-python/graphql-core#272 · 1 commentaire ·
-
Difficulté 3/5 1-2 jours Accessibilité débutants 55/100
graphql-python/graphql-core#269 · 1 commentaire ·
-
Publish a major version Ouverte
Difficulté 5/5 Plus d'une semaine Accessibilité débutants 35/100
graphql-python/graphql-core#267 · 1 commentaire ·
-
Difficulté 3/5 1-2 jours Accessibilité débutants 45/100
graphql-python/graphql-core#257 ·
-
Difficulté 5/5 Plus d'une semaine Accessibilité débutants 25/100
graphql-python/graphql-core#247 · 8 commentaires ·
Toutes les issues de graphql-python/graphql-core
Issues similaires
-
[Bug] reef-hermes tells me to resume with hermes --resume, which does not work from my shell Ouvertearea: harness bug status: needs-triage
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 75/100
Human-Agent-Society/reef#625 ·
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 70/100
-
Difficulté 1/5 Moins d'une heure Accessibilité débutants 80/100
learningequality/kolibri#15351 · 2 commentaires ·
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 75/100
-
Name consistency Ouverte
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 75/100
eellak/triplestore#65 · 1 commentaire ·