Structure --------- nilmdb.nilmdb is the NILM database interface. It tracks a PyTables database holds actual rows of data, and a SQL database tracks metadata and ranges. Access to the nilmdb must be single-threaded. This is handled with the nilmdb.serializer class. nilmdb.server is a HTTP server that provides an interface to talk, thorugh the serialization layer, to the nilmdb object. nilmdb.client is a HTTP client that connects to this. Sqlite performance ------------------ Committing a transaction in the default sync mode (PRAGMA synchronous=FULL) takes about 125msec. sqlite3 will commit transactions at 3 times: 1: explicit con.commit() 2: between a series of DML commands and non-DML commands, e.g. after a series of INSERT, SELECT, but before a CREATE TABLE or PRAGMA. 3: at the end of an explicit transaction, e.g. "with self.con as con:" To speed up testing, or if this transaction speed becomes an issue, the sync=False option to NilmDB will set PRAGMA synchronous=OFF. Inserting streams ----------------- We need to send the contents of "data" as POST. Do we need chunked transfer? - Don't know the size in advance, so we would need to use chunked if we send the entire thing in one request. - But we shouldn't send one chunk per line, so we need to buffer some anyway; why not just make new requests? - Consider the infinite-streaming case, we might want to send it immediately? Not really -- server still should do explicit inserts of fixed-size chunks. - Even chunked encoding needs the size of each chunk beforehand, so everything still gets buffered. Just a tradeoff of buffer size. Before timestamps are added: - Raw data is about 440 kB/s (9 channels) - Prep data is about 12.5 kB/s (1 phase) - How do we know how much data to send? - Remember that we can only do maybe 8-50 transactions per second on the sqlite database. So if one block of inserted data is one transaction, we'd need the raw case to be around 64kB per request, ideally more. - Maybe use a range, based on how long it's taking to read the data - If no more data, send it - If data > 1 MB, send it - If more than 10 seconds have elapsed, send it - Should those numbers come from the server? Converting from ASCII to PyTables: - For each row getting added, we need to set attributes on a PyTables Row object and call table.append(). This means that there isn't a particularly efficient way of converting from ascii. - Could create a function like nilmdb.layout.Layout("foo".fillRow(asciiline) - But this means we're doing parsing on the serialized side - Let's keep parsing on the threaded server side so we can detect errors better, and not block the serialized nilmdb for a slow parsing process. - Client sends ASCII data - Server converts this ACSII data to a list of values - Maybe: # threaded side creates this object parser = nilmdb.layout.Parser("layout_name") # threaded side parses and fills it with data parser.parse(textdata) # serialized side pulls out rows for n in xrange(parser.nrows): parser.fill_row(rowinstance, n) table.append() Inserting streams, inside nilmdb -------------------------------- - First check that the new stream doesn't overlap. - Get minimum timestamp, maximum timestamp from data parser. - (extend parser to verify monotonicity and track extents) - Get all intervals for this stream in the database - See if new interval overlaps any existing ones - If so, bail - Question: should we cache intervals inside NilmDB? - Assume database is fast for now, and always rebuild fom DB. - Can add a caching layer later if we need to. - `stream_get_ranges(path)` -> return IntervalSet? Speed ----- - First approach was quadratic. Adding four hours of data: $ time zcat /home/jim/bpnilm-data/snapshot-1-20110513-110002.raw.gz | ./nilmtool.py insert -s 20110513-110000 /bpnilm/1/raw real 24m31.093s $ time zcat /home/jim/bpnilm-data/snapshot-1-20110513-110002.raw.gz | ./nilmtool.py insert -s 20110513-120001 /bpnilm/1/raw real 43m44.528s $ time zcat /home/jim/bpnilm-data/snapshot-1-20110513-110002.raw.gz | ./nilmtool.py insert -s 20110513-130002 /bpnilm/1/raw real 93m29.713s $ time zcat /home/jim/bpnilm-data/snapshot-1-20110513-110002.raw.gz | ./nilmtool.py insert -s 20110513-140003 /bpnilm/1/raw real 166m53.007s - Disabling pytables indexing didn't help: real 31m21.492s real 52m51.963s real 102m8.151s real 176m12.469s - Server RAM usage is constant. - Speed problems were due to IntervalSet speed, of parsing intervals from the database and adding the new one each time. - First optimization is to cache result of `nilmdb:_get_intervals`, which gives the best speedup. - Also switched to internally using bxInterval from bx-python package. Speed of `tests/test_interval:TestIntervalSpeed` is pretty decent and seems to be growing logarithmically now. About 85μs per insertion for inserting 131k entries. - Storing the interval data in SQL might be better, with a scheme like: http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/blog/01235197474 - Next slowdown target is nilmdb.layout.Parser.parse(). - Rewrote parsers using cython and sscanf - Stats (rev 10831), with _add_interval disabled layout.pyx.Parser.parse:128 6303 sec, 262k calls layout.pyx.parse:63 13913 sec, 5.1g calls numpy:records.py.fromrecords:569 7410 sec, 262k calls - Probably OK for now. IntervalSet speed ----------------- - Initial implementation was pretty slow, even with binary search in sorted list - Replaced with bxInterval; now takes about log n time for an insertion - TestIntervalSpeed with range(17,18) and profiling - 85 μs each - 131072 calls to `__iadd__` - 131072 to bx.insert_interval - 131072 to bx.insert:395 - 2355835 to bx.insert:106 (18x as many?) - Tried blist too, worse than bxinterval. - Might be algorithmic improvements to be made in Interval.py, like in `__and__` - Replaced again with rbtree. Seems decent. Numbers are time per insert for 2**17 insertions, followed by total wall time and RAM usage for running "make test" with `test_rbtree` and `test_interval` with range(5,20): - old values with bxinterval: 20.2 μS, total 20 s, 177 MB RAM - rbtree, plain python: 97 μS, total 105 s, 846 MB RAM - rbtree converted to cython: 26 μS, total 29 s, 320 MB RAM - rbtree and interval converted to cython: 8.4 μS, total 12 s, 134 MB RAM Layouts ------- Current/old design has specific layouts: RawData, PrepData, RawNotchedData. Let's get rid of this entirely and switch to simpler data types that are just collections and counts of a single type. We'll still use strings to describe them, with format: type_count where type is "uint16", "float32", or "float64", and count is an integer. nilmdb.layout.named() will parse these strings into the appropriate handlers. For compatibility: "RawData" == "uint16_6" "RawNotchedData" == "uint16_9" "PrepData" == "float32_8"