Table of Contents
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？立即注册
While working on a tech blog post and tech eventsearch engine, I noticed that fetching RSS or Atom feeds is starting to take a longer time, so I thought about a way of speeding up that operation since there are plans to scale collection at some point.
This post will describe a way of optimizing the process of fetching blog post feeds.
This query will sort requests by expected duration (response time). The output will be an ordering of the requests to make. First, all of those that we have timing data for will be sorted by duration. Then we'll have the ones we don't have timing data for, and those can be run in any order.
We split the requests in batches. Inside each batch, all the urls are fetched in parallel. So an estimate for the running time of a batch is the maximum response time in that batch. The batches themselves are run sequentially.
The aim of this is to not let urls with slow response times slow down the entire batch.
This is a small example with batch size 3.
A timeline visualization of these response times 复制代码
- [3,10,4] ; [13,9,2] ; [11,20,8]
- total time: 10 + 13 + 20 = 43
Another timeline visualization, but this time the requests are ordered by the expected response time and afterwards, the batches are built. 复制代码
- [2,3,4] ; [8,9,10] ; [11,13,20]
- total time: 4 + 10 + 20 = 34
So the difference between these two timelines can be seen above, we save 9 seconds due to reordering.
After implementing this new logic, the running time for fetching 1597 urls was decreased from 24 min 25 seconds to 20 min 17 seconds.
In the example below, we use wCTE to gradually refine our results. First we get the urls which are passed as a parameter when the query is executed. These are the urls which we plan to make requests to.
Then we compute average response time based on previous measurements since the collector measures and stores such information on every run in the entry_timingstable.
After we're done with this, we'll use a JOINto find out which feed urls we already know the response times to, and we sort them in ascending order by those times.
If we find feeds that we have no timing information for, we will allow those to be run at the end of the collection process.
- WITH planned_urls AS (
- -- all requests we plan on making
- unnest(%(urls)s) AS url
- ), timing_urls AS (
- -- urls that we have timing data for.
- -- get duration for each url in average milliseconds
- (AVG(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM a.end_time - a.start_time)*1000))::integer AS duration
- FROM entry_timing a
- WHERE a.end_time IS NOT NULL AND a.start_time IS NOT NULL
- GROUP BY a.feed_url
- ), known_urls AS (
- -- requests where we have timing data.
- -- we sort these in ascending order of their expected
- -- duration.
- FROM planned_urls a
- JOIN timing_urls b ON a.url = b.feed_url
- ORDER BY b.duration
- ), unknown_urls AS (
- -- requests where we don't have timing data.
- -- we can't say anything about these so the order
- -- won't matter here.
- 9999999 as duration
- FROM planned_urls a
- LEFT JOIN timing_urls b ON a.url = b.feed_url
- WHERE b.feed_url IS NULL
- ), all_reordered AS (
- SELECT * FROM known_urls
- UNION ALL
- SELECT * FROM unknown_urls
- *, rank() over(ORDER BY duration ASC) AS ordinal
- FROM all_reordered;
We've seen a way of improving run time of HTTP requests run in batches by reordering and building the batches using stored timing information from previous runs.
下一篇：Trace - adds logging and metrics to net trace