[Pulp-dev] Integer IDs in Pulp 3

Daniel Alley dalley at redhat.com
Wed Jul 11 15:03:06 UTC 2018

So, since I've already been working on some Pulp 3 benchmarking I decided
to go ahead and benchmark this to get some actual data.

Disclaimer:  The following data is using bulk_create() with a modified,
flat, non-inheriting content model, not the current multi-table inherited
content model we're currently using.  It's also using bulk_create() which
we are not currently using in Pulp 3, but likely will end up using

Using normal IDs instead of UUIDs was between 13% and 25% faster with
15,000 units.  15,000 units isn't really a sufficient value to actually
test index performance, so I'm rerunning it with a few hundred thousand
units, but that will take a substantial amount of time to run.  I'll follow
up later.

As far as search/update performance goes, that probably has better margins
than just insert performance, but I'll need to write new code to benchmark
that properly.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:52 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Agreed on performance. Doing some more Googling seems to have mixed
> opinions on whether UUIDs performance is worse or not. If this is a
> significant reason to switch, I agree we should test out the performance.
> Regarding the disk size, I think using UUIDs is cumulative. Larger PKs
> mean bigger index sizes, bigger FKs, etc. I agree that it’s probably not a
> major concern but I wouldn’t say it’s trivial.
> David
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Sean Myers <sean.myers at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> Responses inline.
>> On 05/23/2018 02:26 PM, David Davis wrote:
>> > Before the release of Pulp 3.0 GA, I think it’s worth just checking in
>> to
>> > make sure we want to use UUIDs over integer based IDs. Changing from
>> UUIDs
>> > to ints would be a very easy change at this point  (1-2 lines of code)
>> but
>> > after GA ships, it would be hard if not impossible to switch.
>> >
>> > I think there are a number of reasons why we might want to consider
>> integer
>> > IDs:
>> >
>> > - Better performance all around for inserts[0], searches, indexing, etc
>> I don't really care either way, but it's worth pointing out that UUIDs are
>> integers (in the sense that the entire internet can be reduced to a single
>> integer since it's all just bits). To the best of my knowledge they are
>> equally
>> performant to integers and stored in similar ways in Postgres.
>> You linked a MySQL experiment, done using a version of MySQL that is
>> nearly 10
>> years old. If there are concerns about the performance of UUID PKs vs.
>> int PKs
>> in Pulp, we should compare apples to apples and profile Pulp using UUID
>> PKs,
>> profile Pulp using integer PKs, and then compare the two.
>> In my small-scale testing (100,000 randomly generated content rows of a
>> proto-RPM content model, 1000 repositories randomly related to each, no
>> db funny
>> business beyond enforced uniqueness constraints), there was either no
>> difference, or what difference there was fell into the margin of error.
>> > - Less storage required (4 bytes for int vs 16 byes for UUIDs)
>> Well, okay...UUIDs are *huge* integers. But it's the length of an IPv6
>> address
>> vs. the length of an IPv4 address. While it's true that 4 < 16, both are
>> still
>> pretty small. Trivially so, I think.
>> Without taking relations into account, a table with a million rows should
>> be a
>> little less than twelve mega(mebi)bytes larger. Even at scale, the size
>> difference is negligible, especially when compared to the size on disk of
>> the
>> actual content you'd need to be storing that those million rows represent.
>> > - Hrefs would be shorter (e.g. /pulp/api/v3/repositories/1/)
>> > - In line with other apps like Katello
>> I think these two are definitely worth considering, though.
>> > There are some downsides to consider though:
>> >
>> > - Integer ids expose info like how many records there are
>> This was the main intent, if I recall correctly. UUID PKs are not:
>> - monotonically increasing
>> - variably sized (string length, not bit length)
>> So an objects PK doesn't give you any indication of how many other
>> objects may
>> be in the same collection, and while the Hrefs are long, for any given
>> resource
>> they will always be a predictable size.
>> The major downside is really that they're a pain in the butt to type out
>> when
>> compared to int PKs, so if users are in a situation where they do have to
>> type
>> these things out, I think something has gone wrong.
>> If users typing in PKs can't be avoided, UUIDs probably should be
>> avoided. I
>> recognize that this is effectively a restatement of "Hrefs would be
>> shorter" in
>> the context of how that impacts the user.
>> > - Can’t support sharding or multiple dbs (are we ever going to need
>> this?)
>> A very good question. To the best of my recollection this was never
>> stated as a
>> hard requirement; it was only ever mentioned like it is here, as a
>> potential
>> positive side-effect of UUID keys. If collision-avoidance is not desired,
>> and
>> will certainly never be desired, then a normal integer field would likely
>> be a
>> less astonishing[0] user experience, and therefore a better user
>> experience.
>> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180711/7a12a674/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list