[Pulp-dev] Concerns about bulk_create and PostgreSQL
bbouters at redhat.com
Wed Dec 5 17:10:38 UTC 2018
+1 to experimentation and also making sure that we understand the
performance implications of the decision. I'm replying to this earlier note
to restate my observations of the problem a bit more.
More ideas and thoughts are welcome. This is a decision with a lot of
aspects to consider.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 17:08 -0500, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> > When we switched from UUID to integers for the PK
> > with databases other than PostgreSQL .
> > With a goal of database agnosticism for Pulp3, if plugin writers plan to
> use bulk_create with any object inherited
> > from one of ours, they can't will get different behaviors on different
> databases and they won't have PKs that they may
> > require. bulk_create is a normal django thing, so plugin writers making
> a django plugin should be able to use it. This
> > concerned me already, but today it was also brought up by non-RH plugin
> writers also  in a PR.
> > The tradeoffs bteween UUIDs versus PKs are pretty well summed up in our
> ticket where we discussed that change .
> > Note, we did not consider this bulk_create downside at that time, which
> I think is the most significant downside to
> > consider.
> > Having bulk_create effectively not available for plugin writers (since
> we can't rely on its pks being returned) I
> > think is a non-starter for me. I love how short the UUIDs made our URLs
> so that's the tradeoff mainly in my mind.
> > Those balanced against each other, I think we should switch back.
> > Another option is to become PostgreSQL only which (though I love psql) I
> think would be the wrong choice for Pulp from
> > what I've heard from its users.
> > What do you think? What should we do?
> So, my mind immediately goes to this question, which might be usefull for
> others to help make decisions, so I'll ask:
> When you say:
> "we lost the ability to have the primary key set during bulk_create"
> Can you clarify what you mean by this?
> My mind immediately goes to this chain of events:
> When you use bulk_create, the existing in-memory model objects
> representing the data to create do not get
> updated with the primary key values that are created in the database.
> Upon a subsequent query of the database, for the exact same set of
> objects just added, those objects _will_ have
> the primary key populated.
> In other words,
> The database records themselves get the auto-increment IDs added,
> they just don't get reported back in that
> query to the ORM layer, therefore it takes a subsequent query to get those
> ids out.
> Does that about sum it up?
Yes this describes the situation, but there is a bit more to tell. Since
PostgreSQL does return the ids the subsequent query that could be done to
get the ids isn't written in code today. We didn't need to because we
developed it against PostgreSQL. I'm pretty sure that if you configure Pulp
against MySQL Pulp won't work, which I think is a problem. So I'm observing
two things here. 1) This is a hazard that causes code to unexpectedly be
only compliant with PostgreSQL. 2) Pulp itself fell into this hazard and we
need to fix that too
Do you also see these two issues? What should be done about these?
> > :
> > : https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3764#discussion_r234780702
> > : https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3848
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev