Opened 19 months ago

Last modified 18 months ago

#21171 new Cleanup/optimization

Skip transaction creation for single statement operations

Reported by: akaariai Owned by: nobody
Component: Database layer (models, ORM) Version: 1.5
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: no Needs documentation: no
Needs tests: no Patch needs improvement: no
Easy pickings: no UI/UX: no

Description

There are a couple of cases where Django will execute just a single data modifying statement for the operation done. Examples include single table .save(), .delete() that doesn't cascade, bulk_create() and .update(). Atomicity of single statements guarantees that these operations work without creating / releasing transaction. This could increase performance of these statements when used in autocommit mode.

The save() method should be easy to handle - it is easy to check if the table has parents or not. Bulk create is also somewhat easy, although there are cases where multiple queries need to be executed. Model deletion might be hard to handle, signals are sent inside the same transaction and it isn't that far fetched to think that signal handler will do additional data modifications (log changes for example).

It might be there are more operations that could benefit from this - get_or_create() and update_or_create() for example.

I got the idea while inspecting if cache db backend could use ORM directly. Currently the db backend doesn't wrap all data modifications in atomic blocks, but if using ORM directly that would happen and this could lead to performance problems in the backend.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 19 months ago by timo

  • Needs documentation unset
  • Needs tests unset
  • Patch needs improvement unset
  • Triage Stage changed from Unreviewed to Accepted

comment:2 Changed 18 months ago by shai

I must be missing something -- in current master, get_or_create() and update_or_create() are not single-statement operations.

Also, as far as I see, the signals argument applies to save() just as much as it applies to delete().

Perhaps add a keyword argument? subtransaction=True, so if you want to save a bit you pass in False?

comment:3 Changed 18 months ago by akaariai

For save() signals are sent outside the transaction but for delete inside the transaction. So, for delete, if you skip the transaction creation, then queries ran from signals aren't inside transaction control. But for save() this isn't the case - any DML is ran outside transaction in any case.

The delete() case is a change in behaviour.

You are right about get_or_create() and update_or_create().

All in all, I'm beginning to wonder if this is really worth it...

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Back to Top