Company logo
  • Empleos
  • Bootcamp
  • Acerca de nosotros
  • Para profesionales
    • Inicio
    • Empleos
    • Cursos y retos
    • Preguntas
    • Profesores
    • Bootcamp
  • Para empresas
    • Inicio
    • Nuestro proceso
    • Planes
    • Pruebas
    • Nómina
    • Blog
    • Calculadora

0

304
Vistas
asyncpg - connection vs connection pool

I am going over asyncpg's documentation, and I am having trouble understanding why use a connection pool instead of a single connection.

In the example given, a pool is used:

async with pool.acquire() as connection:
    async with connection.transaction():
        result = await connection.fetchval('select 2 ^ $1', power)
        return web.Response(
            text="2 ^ {} is {}".format(power, result))

but it could also be done by creating a connection when necessary:

connection = await asyncpg.connect(user='postgres')
async with connection.transaction():
    result = await connection.fetchval('select 2 ^ $1', power)
    return web.Response(
            text="2 ^ {} is {}".format(power, result))

What's the advantage of using pools over connections as necessary?

8 months ago · Santiago Trujillo
2 Respuestas
Responde la pregunta

0

Establishing a connection to a database server is an expensive operation. Connection pools are a common technique allowing to avoid paying that cost. A pool keeps the connections open and leases them out when necessary.

It's easy to see the benefits of a pool by doing a simple benchmark:

async def bench_asyncpg_con():
    power = 2
    start = time.monotonic()
    for i in range(1, 1000):
        con = await asyncpg.connect(user='postgres', host='127.0.0.1')
        await con.fetchval('select 2 ^ $1', power)
        await con.close()

    end = time.monotonic()
    print(end - start)

The above completes on my machine in 1.568 seconds.

Whereas the pool version:

async def bench_asyncpg_pool():
    pool = await asyncpg.create_pool(user='postgres', host='127.0.0.1')
    power = 2
    start = time.monotonic()
    for i in range(1, 1000):
        async with pool.acquire() as con:
            await con.fetchval('select 2 ^ $1', power)

    await pool.close()
    end = time.monotonic()
    print(end - start)

Runs in 0.234 seconds, or 6.7 times faster.

8 months ago · Santiago Trujillo Denunciar

0

Elvis Pranskevichus showed two benchmarks above. I took the first one bench_asyncpg_con and edited it, moving the con outside the loop:

async def bench_asyncpg_con_2():
    power = 2
    start = time.monotonic()
    con = await asyncpg.connect(**data)
    for i in range(1, 1000):
        await con.fetchval('select 2 ^ $1', power)

    await con.close()
    end = time.monotonic()
    print(end - start) 

And this worked much faster than bench_asyncpg_pool

I got 0.45 on this, whereas I got

1.62 on bench_asyncpg_pool and

63.18 on bench_asyncpg_con

I'm kinda newbie in using this lib and thinking that one connection con for a whole project would be a good choice. Correct me if I'm wrong. I will appreciate it

8 months ago · Santiago Trujillo Denunciar
Responde la pregunta
Encuentra empleos remotos

¡Descubre la nueva forma de encontrar empleo!

Top de empleos
Top categorías de empleo
Empresas
Publicar empleo Planes Nuestro proceso Comercial
Legal
Términos y condiciones Política de privacidad
© 2023 PeakU Inc. All Rights Reserved.