issue_comments: 1724298817
This data as json
html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/2189#issuecomment-1724298817 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2189 | 1724298817 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5mxrZB | 9599 | 2023-09-18T20:11:26Z | 2023-09-18T20:11:26Z | OWNER | Now that I've confirmed that parallel query execution of the kind introduced in https://github.com/simonw/datasette/commit/942411ef946e9a34a2094944d3423cddad27efd3 can cause hangs (presumably some kind of locking issue) against in-memory databases, some options:
The parallel execution work is something I was playing with last year in the hope of speeding up Datasette pages like the table page which need to execute a bunch of queries - one for each facet, plus one for each column to see if it should be suggested as a facet. I wrote about this at the time here: https://simonwillison.net/2022/May/6/weeknotes/ My hope was that despite Python's GIL this optimization would still help, because the SQLite C module releases the GIL once it gets to SQLite. But... that didn't hold up. It looked like enough work was happening in Python land with the GIL that the optimization didn't improve things. Running the ... which it now has! But it will still be a year or two before it fully lands: https://discuss.python.org/t/a-steering-council-notice-about-pep-703-making-the-global-interpreter-lock-optional-in-cpython/30474 So I'm not particularly concerned about dropping the parallel execution. If I do drop it though do I leave the potentially complex code in that relates to it? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
1901416155 |