I have some code that I am working on that scrapes some data from a website, and then extracts certain key information from that website and stores it in an object. I create a couple hundred of these objects each day, each from unique url's. This is working quite well, however, I'm inexperienced in what options are available to me in Python for persistence and what would be best suited for my needs.
Currently I am using pickle. To do so, I am keeping all of these webpage objects and appending them in a list as new ones are created, then saving that list to a pickle (then reloading it whenever the list is to be updated). However, as i'm in the order of some GB of data, i'm finding pickle to be somewhat slow. It's not unworkable, but I'm wondering if there is a more well suited alternative. I don't really want to break apart the structure of my objects and store it in a sql type database, as its important for me to keep the methods and the data as a single object.
Shelve is one option I've been looking into, as my impression is then that I wouldn't have to unpickle and pickle all the old entries (just the most recent day that needs to be updated), but am unsure if this is how shelve works, and how fast it is.
So to avoid rambling on, my question is: what is the preferred persistence method for storing a large number of objects (all of the same type), to keep read/write speed up as the collection grows?
Martijn's suggestion could be one of the alternatives.
You may consider to store the pickle objects directly in a sqlite database which still can manage from the python standard library.
Use a StringIO object to convert between the database column and python object.
You didn't mention the size of each object you are pickling now. I guess it should stay well within sqlite's limit.
Related
I've been having a hard time using a large dictionary (~86GB, 1.75 billion keys) to process a big dataset (2TB) using multiprocessing in Python.
Context: a dictionary mapping strings to strings is loaded from pickled files into memory. Once loaded, worker processes (ideally >32) are created that must lookup values in the dictionary but not modify it's contents, in order to process the ~2TB dataset. The data set needs to be processed in parallel otherwise the task would take over a month.
Here are the two three four five six seven eight nine approaches (all failing) that I have tried:
Store the dictionary as a global variable in the Python program and then fork the ~32 worker processes. Theoretically this method might work since the dictionary is not being modified and therefore the COW mechanism of fork on Linux would mean that the data structure would be shared and not copied among processes. However, when I attempt this, my program crashes on os.fork() inside of multiprocessing.Pool.map from OSError: [Errno 12] Cannot allocate memory. I'm convinced that this is because the kernel is configured to never overcommit memory (/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory is set to 2, and I can't configure this setting on the machine since I don't have root access).
Load the dictionary into a shared-memory dictionary with multiprocessing.Manager.dict. With this approach I was able to fork the 32 worker process without crashing but the subsequent data processing is orders of magnitude slower than another version of the task that required no dictionary (only difference is no dictionary lookup). I theorize that this is because of the inter-process communication between the manager process containing the dictionary and each worker process, that is required for every single dictionary lookup. Although the dictionary is not being modified, it is being accessed many many times, often simultaneously by many processes.
Copy the dictionary into a C++ std::map and rely on Linux's COW mechanism to prevent it from being copied (like approach #1 except with the dictionary in C++). With this approach, it took a long time to load the dictionary into std::map and subsequently crashed from ENOMEM on os.fork() just as before.
Copy the dictionary into pyshmht. It takes far too long to copy the dictionary into pyshmht.
Try using SNAP's HashTable. The underlying implementation in C++ allows for it to be made and used in shared memory. Unfortunately the Python API does not offer this functionality.
Use PyPy. Crash still happened as in #1.
Implement my own shared-memory hash table in python on top of multiprocessing.Array. This approach still resulted in the out of memory error that ocured in #1.
Dump the dictionary into dbm. After trying to dump the dictionary into a dbm database for four days and seeing an ETA of "33 days", I gave up on this approach.
Dump the dictionary into Redis. When I try to dump the dictionaries (the 86GB dict is loaded from 1024 smaller dicts) into Redis using redis.mset I get a connection reset by peer error. When I try to dump the key-value pairs using a loop, it takes an extremely long time.
How can I process this dataset in parallel efficiently without requiring inter-process communication in order to lookup values in this dictionary. I would welcome any suggestions for solving this problem!
I'm using Python 3.6.3 from Anaconda on Ubuntu on a machine with 1TB RAM.
Edit: What finally worked:
I was able to get this to work using Redis. To get around the issued in #9, I had to chunk the large key-value insertion and lookup queries into "bite-sized" chunks so that it was still processing in batches, but didn't time-out from too large a query. Doing this allowed the insertion of the 86GB dictionary to be performed in 45 minutes (with 128 threads and some load balancing), and the subsequent processing was not hampered in performance by the Redis lookup queries (finished in 2 days).
Thank you all for your help and suggestions.
You should probably use a system that's meant for sharing large amounts of data with many different processes -- like a Database.
Take your giant dataset and create a schema for it and dump it into a database. You could even put it on a separate machine.
Then launch as many processes as you want, across as many hosts as you want, to process the data in parallel. Pretty much any modern database will be more than capable of handling the load.
Instead of using a dictionary, use a data structure that compresses data, but still has fast lookups.
e.g:
keyvi: https://github.com/cliqz-oss/keyvi
keyvi is a FSA-based key-value data structure optimized for space & lookup speed. multiple processes reading from keyvi will re-use the memory, because a keyvi structure is memory mapped and it uses shared memory. Since your worker processes don't need to modify the data structure, I think this would be your best bet.
marisa trie: https://github.com/pytries/marisa-trie static trie structure for Python, based on the marisa-trie C++ library. Like keyvi, marisa-trie also uses memory-mapping. Multiple processes using the same trie will use the same memory.
EDIT:
To use keyvi for this task, you can first install it with pip install pykeyvi. Then use it like this:
from pykeyvi import StringDictionaryCompiler, Dictionary
# Create the dictionary
compiler = StringDictionaryCompiler()
compiler.Add('foo', 'bar')
compiler.Add('key', 'value')
compiler.Compile()
compiler.WriteToFile('test.keyvi')
# Use the dictionary
dct = Dictionary('test.keyvi')
dct['foo'].GetValue()
> 'bar'
dct['key'].GetValue()
> 'value'
marisa trie is just a trie, so it wouldn't work as a mapping out of the box, but you can for example us a delimiter char to separate keys from values.
If you can successfully load that data into a single process in point 1, you can most likely work around the problem of fork doing copies by using gc.freeze introduced in https://bugs.python.org/issue31558
You have to use python 3.7+ and call that function before you fork. (or before you do the map over process pool)
Since this requires a virtual copy of the whole memory for the CoW to work, you need to make sure your overcommit settings allow you to do that.
As most people here already mentioned:
Don't use that big a dictionary, Dump it on a Database instead!!!
After dumping your data into a database, using indexes will help reduce data retrieval times.
A good indexing explanation for PostgreSQL databases here.
You can optimize your database even further (I give a PostgreSQL example because that is what I mostly use, but those concepts apply to almost every database)
Assuming you did the above (or if you want to use the dictionary either way...), you can implement a parallel and asynchronous processing routine using Python's asyncio (needs Python version >= 3.4).
The base idea is to create a mapping method to assign (map) an asynchronous task to each item of an iterable and register each task to asyncio's event_loop.
Finally, we will collect all those promises with asyncio.gather and we will wait to receive all the results.
A skeleton code example of this idea:
import asyncio
async def my_processing(value):
do stuff with the value...
return processed_value
def my_async_map(my_coroutine, my_iterable):
my_loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
my_future = asyncio.gather(
*(my_coroutine(val) for val in my_iterable)
)
return my_loop.run_until_complete(my_future)
my_async_map(my_processing, my_ginormous_iterable)
You can use gevent instead of asyncio, but keep in mind that asyncio is part of the standard library.
Gevent implementation:
import gevent
from gevent.pool import Group
def my_processing(value):
do stuff with the value...
return processed_value
def my_async_map(my_coroutine, my_iterable):
my_group = Group()
return my_group.map(my_coroutine, my_iterable)
my_async_map(my_processing, my_ginormous_iterable)
The already mentioned keyvi (http://keyvi.org) sounds like the best option to me, because "python shared memory dictionary" describes exactly what it is. I am the author of keyvi, call me biased, but give me the chance to explain:
Shared memory make it scalable, especially for python where the GIL-problematic forces you to use multiprocessing rather than threading. That's why a heap-based in-process solution wouldn't scale. Also shared memory can be bigger than main memory, parts can be swapped in and out.
External process network based solutions require an extra network hop, which you can avoid by using keyvi, this makes a big performance difference even on the local machine. The question is also whether the external process is single-threaded and therefore introduces a bottleneck again.
I wonder about your dictionary size: 86GB: there is a good chance that keyvi compresses that nicely, but hard to say without knowing the data.
As for processing: Note that keyvi works nicely in pySpark/Hadoop.
Your usecase BTW is exactly what keyvi is used for in production, even on a higher scale.
The redis solution sounds good, at least better than some database solution. For saturating the cores you should use several instances and divide the key space using consistent hashing. But still, using keyvi, I am sure, would scale way better. You should try it, if you have to repeat the task and/or need to process more data.
Last but not least, you find nice material on the website, explaining the above in more detail.
Maybe you should try do it in database, and maybe try to use Dask to solve your problem,let Dask to care about how to multiprocessing in the low level. You can focus on the main question you want to solve using that large data.
And this the link you may want to look Dask
Well I do believe that the Redis or a database would be the easiest and quickest fix.
But from what I understood, why not reduce the problem from your second solution? That is, first try to load a portion of the billion keys into memory (say 50 Million). Then using Multi-processing, create a pool to work on the 2 TB file. If the lookup of the line exists in the table, push the data to a list of processed lines. If it doesn't exist, push it to a list. Once you complete reading the data set, pickle your list and flush the keys you have stored from memory. Then load the next million and repeat the process instead reading from your list. Once it is finished completely, read all your pickle objects.
This should handle the speed issue that you were facing. Of course, I have very little knowledge of your data set and do not know if this is even feasible. Of course, you might be left with lines that did not get a proper dictionary key read, but at this point your data size would be significantly reduced.
Don't know if that is of any help.
Another solution could be to use some existing database driver which can allocate / retire pages as necessary and deal with the index lookup quickly.
dbm has a nice dictionary interface available and with automatic caching of pages may be fast enough for your needs. If nothing is modified, you should be able to effectively cache the whole file at VFS level.
Just remember to disable locking, open in not synch-ed mode, and open for 'r' only so nothing impacts caching/concurrent access.
Since you're only looking to create a read-only dictionary it is possible that you can get better speed than some off the shelf databases by rolling your own simple version. Perhaps you could try something like:
import os.path
import functools
db_dir = '/path/to/my/dbdir'
def write(key, value):
path = os.path.join(db_dir, key)
with open(path, 'w') as f:
f.write(value)
#functools.lru_cache(maxsize=None)
def read(key):
path = os.path.join(db_dir, key)
with open(path) as f:
return f.read()
This will create a folder full of text files. The name of each file is the dictionary key and the contents are the value. Timing this myself I get about 300us per write (using a local SSD). Using those numbers theoretically the time taken to write your 1.75 billion keys would be about a week but this is easily parallelisable so you might be able to get it done a lot faster.
For reading I get about 150us per read with warm cache and 5ms cold cache (I mean the OS file cache here). If your access pattern is repetitive you could memoize your read function in process with lru_cache as above.
You may find that storing this many files in one directory is not possible with your filesystem or that it is inefficient for the OS. In that case you can do like the .git/objects folder: Store the key abcd in a file called ab/cd (i.e. in a file cd in folder ab).
The above would take something like 15TB on disk based on a 4KB block size. You could make it more efficient on disk and for OS caching by trying to group together keys by the first n letters so that each file is closer to the 4KB block size. The way this would work is that you have a file called abc which stores key value pairs for all keys that begin with abc. You could create this more efficiently if you first output each of your smaller dictionaries into a sorted key/value file and then mergesort as you write them into the database so that you write each file one at a time (rather than repeatedly opening and appending).
While the majority suggestion of "use a database" here is wise and proven, it sounds like you may want to avoid using a database for some reason (and you are finding the load into the db to be prohibitive), so essentially it seems you are IO-bound, and/or processor-bound. You mention that you are loading the 86GB index from 1024 smaller indexes. If your key is reasonably regular, and evenly-distributed, is it possible for you to go back to your 1024 smaller indexes and partition your dictionary? In other words, if, for example, your keys are all 20 characters long, and comprised of the letters a-z, create 26 smaller dictionaries, one for all keys beginning with 'a', one for keys beginning 'b' and so on. You could extend this concept to a large number of smaller dictionaries dedicated to the first 2 characters or more. So, for example, you could load one dictionary for the keys beginning 'aa', one for keys beginning 'ab' and so on, so you would have 676 individual dictionaries. The same logic would apply for a partition over the first 3 characters, using 17,576 smaller dictionaries. Essentially I guess what I'm saying here is "don't load your 86GB dictionary in the first place". Instead use a strategy that naturally distributes your data and/or load.
I have data that is best represented by a tree. Serializing the structure makes the most sense, because I don't want to sort it every time, and it would allow me to make persistent modifications to the data.
On the other hand, this tree is going to be accessed from different processes on different machines, so I'm worried about the details of reading and writing. Basic searches didn't yield very much on the topic.
If two users simultaneously attempt to revive the tree and read from it, can they both be served at once, or does one arbitrarily happen first?
If two users have the tree open (assuming they can) and one makes an edit, does the other see the change implemented? (I assume they don't because they each received what amounts to a copy of the original data.)
If two users alter the object and close it at the same time, again, does one come first, or is an attempt made to make both changes simultaneously?
I was thinking of making a queue of changes to be applied to the tree, and then having the tree execute them in the order of submission. I thought I would ask what my problems are before trying to solve any of them.
Without trying it out I'm fairly sure the answer is:
They can both be served at once, however, if one user is reading while the other is writing the reading user may get strange results.
Probably not. Once the tree has been read from the file into memory the other user will not see edits of the first user. If the tree hasn't been read from the file then the change will still be detected.
Both changes will be made simultaneously and the file will likely be corrupted.
Also, you mentioned shelve. From the shelve documentation:
The shelve module does not support concurrent read/write access to
shelved objects. (Multiple simultaneous read accesses are safe.) When
a program has a shelf open for writing, no other program should have
it open for reading or writing. Unix file locking can be used to solve
this, but this differs across Unix versions and requires knowledge
about the database implementation used.
Personally, at this point, you may want to look into using a simple key-value store like Redis with some kind of optimistic locking.
You might try klepto, which provides a dictionary interface to a sql database (using sqlalchemy under the covers). If you choose to persist your data to a mysql, postgresql, or other available database (aside from sqlite), then you can have two or more people access the data simultaneously or have two threads/processes access the database tables -- and have the database manage the concurrent read-writes. Using klepto with a database backend will perform under concurrent access as well as if you were accessing the database directly. If you don't want to use a database backend, klepto can write to disk as well -- however there is some potential for conflict when writing to disk -- even though klepto uses a "copy-on-write, then replace" strategy that minimizes concurrency conflicts when working with files on disk. When working with a file (or directory) backend, your issues 1-2-3 are still handled due to the strategy klepto employs for saving writes to disk. Additionally, klepto can use a in-memory caching layer that enables fast access, where loads/dumps from the on-disk (or database) backend are done either on-demand or when the in-memory cache reaches a user-determined size.
To be specific: (1) both are served at the same time. (2) if one user makes an edit, the other user sees the change -- however that change may be 'delayed' if the second user is using an in-memory caching layer. (3) multiple simultaneous writes are not a problem, due to klepto letting NFS or the sql database handle the "copy-on-write, then replace" changes.
The dictionary interface for klepto.archvives is also available in a decorator form that provided LRU caching (and LFU and others), so if you have a function that is generating/accessing the data, hooking up the archive is really easy -- you get memorization with an on-disk or database backend.
With klepto, you can pick from several different serialization methods to encrypt your data. You can have klepto cast data to a string, or use a hashing algorithm (like md5), or use a pickler (like json, pickle, or dill).
You can get klepto here: https://github.com/uqfoundation/klepto
I'm looking for solution to store huge (to big for RAM) array-like/list-like object on HDD. So, basically I'm looking for key-value database with:
- integer (not string!) keys
- ability to store python objects (list of tuples). Appended object will never be changed. There is no relation betweeen objects in array.
- low memory usage (no caching). If I need to load 35235235th object, I want to load only it.
So, I could use SQLite and blobs, but I'm looking for something more elegant and very fast.
Sorry for my bad english. I'm using Python 3.
You could have a look at zodb http://www.zodb.org, which is a mature python db project. It has the btrees package, which provides the IOBTree, which is what you might be looking for.
surfing on the web, reading about django dev best practices points to use pickled model fields with extreme caution.
But in a real life example, where would you use a PickledObjectField, to solve what specific problems?
We have a system of social-networks "backends" which do some generic stuff like "post message", "get status", "get friends" etc. The link between each backend class and user is django model, which keeps user, backend name and credentials. Now imagine how many auth systems are there: oauth, plain passwords, facebook's obscure js stuff etc. This is where JSONField shines, we keep all backend-specif auth data in a dictionary on this model, which is stored in db as json, we can put anything into it no problem.
You would use it to store... almost-arbitrary Python objects. In general there's little reason to use it; JSON is safer and more portable.
You can definitely substitute a PickledObjectField with JSON and some extra logic to create an object out of the JSON. At the end of the day, your use case, when considering to use a PickledObjectField or JSON+logic, is serializing a Python object into your database. If you can trust the data in the Python object, and know that it will always be serialize-able, you can reasonably use the PickledObjectField. In my case (I don't use django's ORM, but this should still apply), I have a couple different object types that can go into my PickledObjectField, and their definitions are constantly mutating. Rather than constantly updating my JSON parsing logic to create an object out of JSON values, I simply use a PickledObjectField to just store the different objects, and then later retrieve them in perfectly usable form (calling their functions). Caveat: If you store an object via PickledObjectField, then you change the object definition, and then you retrieve the object, the old object may have trouble fitting into the new object's definition (depending on what you changed).
The problems to be solved are the efficiency and the convenience of defining and handling a complex object consisting of many parts.
You can turn each part type into a Model and connect them via ForeignKeys.
Or you can turn each part type into a class, dictionary, list, tuple, enum or whathaveyou to your liking and use PickledObjectField to store and retrieve the whole beast in one step.
That approach makes sense if you will never manipulate parts individually, only the complex object as a whole.
Real life example
In my application there are RQdef objects that represent essentially a type with a certain basic structure (if you are curious what they mean, look here).
RQdefs consist of several Aspects and some fixed attributes.
Aspects consist of one or more Facets and some fixed attributes.
Facets consist of two or more Levels and some fixed attributes.
Levels consist of a few fixed attributes.
Overall, a typical RQdef will have about 20-40 parts.
An RQdef is always completely constructed in a single step before it is stored in the database and it is henceforth never modified, only read (but read frequently).
PickledObjectField is more convenient and much more efficient for this purpose than would be a set of four models and 20-40 objects for each RQdef.
I am building an application to distribute to fellow academics. The application will take three parameters that the user submits and output a list of dates and codes related to those events. I have been building this using a dictionary and intended to build the application so that the dictionary loaded from a pickle file when the application called for it. The parameters supplied by the user will be used to lookup the needed output.
I selected this structure because I have gotten pretty comfortable with dictionaries and pickle files and I see this going out the door with the smallest learning curve on my part. There might be as many as two million keys in the dictionary. I have been satisfied with the performance on my machine with a reasonable subset. I have already thought through about how to break the dictionary apart if I have any performance concerns when the whole thing is put together. I am not really that worried about the amount of disk space on their machine as we are working with terabyte storage values.
Having said all of that I have been poking around in the docs and am wondering if I need to invest some time to learn and implement an alternative data storage file. The only reason I can think of is if there is an alternative that could increase the lookup speed by a factor of three to five or more.
The standard shelve module will give you a persistent dictionary that is stored in a dbm style database. Providing that your keys are strings and your values are picklable (since you're using pickle already, this must be true), this could be a better solution that simply storing the entire dictionary in a single pickle.
Example:
>>> import shelve
>>> d = shelve.open('mydb')
>>> d['key1'] = 12345
>>> d['key2'] = value2
>>> print d['key1']
12345
>>> d.close()
I'd also recommend Durus, but that requires some extra learning on your part. It'll let you create a PersistentDictionary. From memory, keys can be any pickleable object.
To get fast lookups, use the standard Python dbm module (see http://docs.python.org/library/dbm.html) to build your database file, and do lookups in it. The dbm file format may not be cross-platform, so you may want to to distrubute your data in Pickle or repr or JSON or YAML or XML format, and build the dbm database the user runs your program.
How much memory can your application reasonably use? Is this going to be running on each user's desktop, or will there just be one deployment somewhere?
A python dictionary in memory can certainly cope with two million keys. You say that you've got a subset of the data; do you have the whole lot? Maybe you should throw the full dataset at it and see whether it copes.
I just tested creating a two million record dictionary; the total memory usage for the process came in at about 200MB. If speed is your primary concern and you've got the RAM to spare, you're probably not going to do better than an in-memory python dictionary.
See this solution at SourceForge, esp. the "endnotes" documentation:
y_serial.py module :: warehouse Python objects with SQLite
"Serialization + persistance :: in a few lines of code, compress and annotate Python objects into SQLite; then later retrieve them chronologically by keywords without any SQL. Most useful "standard" module for a database to store schema-less data."
http://yserial.sourceforge.net
Here are three things you can try:
Compress the pickled dictionary with zlib. pickle.dumps(dict).encode("zlib")
Make your own serializing format (shouldn't be too hard).
Load the data in a sqlite database.