Why Tcl is 700% faster than Python for database benchmarking

Posted on July 5, 2022 by HammerDB

Python is a popular programming language, especially for beginners, and
consequently we see it occurring in places where it just shouldn’t be
used, such as database benchmarking. In contrast, a frequent question
when it comes to HammerDB is why is it written in Tcl? Surely any
language will do?

This post addresses both questions to illustrate exactly why HammerDB
is written in Tcl and why using Python to benchmark a database can
result in poor performance and misleading results. To do this, we are
going to rewrite HammerDB in Python and run a series of tests on a 2
socket Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8280L server to see how and why Tcl is
700% faster than Python for database benchmarking*

Background and Concepts

To begin with, you should be familiar with the concepts of parallelism
vs concurrency and why it is vital that your benchmark should run in
parallel so that you are testing the concurrency of the database. An
introduction to these concepts is given in the following post.

https://www.hammerdb.com/blog/uncategorized/ what-programming-languages-does-hammerdb-use-and-why-does-it-matter/

You should also be familiar with the concepts of ACID compliance and
locking versus multiversioning as well as database transaction
isolation levels, as it is essential to ensure that the database
benchmark itself is not serialized.

Rewriting HammerDB in Python

So we are not actually going to rewrite HammerDB in Python, however it
is trivial to write a command line driver script in Python as all the
hard work in creating the schema and writing the stored procedures has
already been done. (We use stored procedures because, as the
introductory post shows, using single SQL statements turns our database
benchmark into a network test). So instead we are going to take a cut
down version of the HammerDB TPROC-C driver script and do the same in
Python and use the HammerDB infrastructure to measure performance. For
this example, we are going to use PostgreSQL stored procedures in
PostgreSQL 14.1.

So firstly we have the Tcl based driver script called pgtest_thread.tcl

```
#!/usr/local/bin/tclsh8.6
package require Thread
set maxvuser 64
for { set vuser 0 } {$vuser < $maxvuser } {incr vuser} {
set threadID [thread::create {
#EDITABLE OPTIONS##################################################
set library Pgtcl ;# PostgreSQL Library
set total_iterations 10000000
;# Number of transactions before logging off
set host "localhost" ;# Address of the server hosting PostgreSQL
set port "5432" ;# Port of the PostgreSQL Server
set sslmode "disable" ;# SSLMode of the PostgreSQL Server
set user "tpcc" ;# PostgreSQL user
set password "tpcc" ;# Password for the PostgreSQL user
set db "tpcc" ;# Database containing the TPC Schema
#EDITABLE OPTIONS##################################################
#RANDOM NUMBER
proc RandomNumber {m M} {return [expr {int($m+rand()*($M+1-$m))}]}
proc NURand { iConst x y C } {
return [ expr {
((([RandomNumber 0 $iConst] | [RandomNumber $x $y]) + $C) %
($y - $x + 1)) + $x }]}
#RANDOM NAME
proc randname { num } {
array set namearr { 0 BAR 1 OUGHT 2 ABLE 3 PRI 4 PRES 5 ESE 6 ANTI
7 CALLY 8 ATION 9 EING }
set name [ concat $namearr([ expr {( $num / 100 ) % 10 }]) \
$namearr([ expr {( $num / 10 ) % 10 }]) \
$namearr([ expr {( $num / 1 ) % 10 }]) ]
return $name
}

#LOAD LIBRARIES AND MODULES
if [catch {package require $library} message] {
error "Failed to load $library - $message"
}

#TIMESTAMP
proc gettimestamp { } {
set tstamp [ clock format [ clock seconds ] -format %Y%m%d%H%M%S ]
return $tstamp
}
#POSTGRES CONNECTION
proc ConnectToPostgres { host port sslmode user password dbname } {
global tcl_platform
if {[catch { set lda [pg_connect -conninfo [list host = $host \
port = $port sslmode = $sslmode user = $user \
password = $password dbname = $dbname ]]} message]
} {
set lda "Failed" ; puts $message
error $message
} else {
if {$tcl_platform(platform) == "windows"} {
#Workaround for Bug #95 where first connection fails on
#Windows
catch {pg_disconnect $lda}
set lda [pg_connect -conninfo [list host = $host \
port = $port sslmode = $sslmode user = $user \
password = $password dbname = $dbname ]]
}
pg_notice_handler $lda puts
set result [ pg_exec $lda "set CLIENT_MIN_MESSAGES TO 'ERROR'" ]
pg_result $result -clear
}
return $lda
}
#NEW ORDER
proc neword { lda no_w_id w_id_input } {
#2.4.1.2 select district id randomly from home warehouse
# where d_w_id = d_id
set no_d_id [ RandomNumber 1 10 ]
#2.4.1.2 Customer id randomly selected where c_d_id = d_id and
# c_w_id = w_id
set no_c_id [ RandomNumber 1 3000 ]
#2.4.1.3 Items in the order randomly selected from 5 to 15
set ol_cnt [ RandomNumber 5 15 ]
#2.4.1.6 order entry date O_ENTRY_D generated by SUT
set date [ gettimestamp ]
set result [pg_exec $lda "call neword($no_w_id,$w_id_input,$no_d_id,\ $no_c_id,$ol_cnt,0.0,'','',0.0,0.0,0,\ TO_TIMESTAMP('$date','YYYYMMDDHH24MISS')::timestamp without time zone)" ]
if {[pg_result $result -status] != "PGRES_TUPLES_OK"} {
error "[pg_result $result -error]"
pg_result $result -clear
} else {
#puts "New Order: $no_w_id $w_id_input $no_d_id $no_c_id
# $ol_cnt 0 [ pg_ result $result -list ]"
pg_result $result -clear
}
}
#PAYMENT
proc payment { lda p_w_id w_id_input } {
#2.5.1.1 The home warehouse id remains the same for each terminal
#2.5.1.1 select district id randomly from home warehouse
# where d_w_id = d_id
set p_d_id [ RandomNumber 1 10 ]
#2.5.1.2 customer selected 60% of time by name and 40% of time
# by number
set x [ RandomNumber 1 100 ]
set y [ RandomNumber 1 100 ]
if { $x <= 85 } {
set p_c_d_id $p_d_id
set p_c_w_id $p_w_id
} else {
#use a remote warehouse
set p_c_d_id [ RandomNumber 1 10 ]
set p_c_w_id [ RandomNumber 1 $w_id_input ]
while { ($p_c_w_id == $p_w_id) && ($w_id_input != 1) } {
set p_c_w_id [ RandomNumber 1 $w_id_input ]
}
}
set nrnd [ NURand 255 0 999 123 ]
set name [ randname $nrnd ]
set p_c_id [ RandomNumber 1 3000 ]
if { $y <= 60 } {
#use customer name
#C_LAST is generated
set byname 1
} else {
#use customer number
set byname 0
set name {}
}
#2.5.1.3 random amount from 1 to 5000
set p_h_amount [ RandomNumber 1 5000 ]
#2.5.1.4 date selected from SUT
set h_date [ gettimestamp ]
#2.5.2.1 Payment Transaction
#change following to correct values
set result [pg_exec $lda "call payment($p_w_id,$p_d_id,$p_c_w_id,\ $p_c_d_id,$byname,$p_h_amount,'0','$name',$p_c_id,'','','','','','',\ '','','','','','','','','','','','',TO_TIMESTAMP('$h_date',\ 'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS')::timestamp without time zone,0.0,0.0,0.0,'',\ TO_TIMESTAMP('$h_date',\
'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS')::timestamp without time zone)" ]
if {[pg_result $result -status] != "PGRES_TUPLES_OK"} {
error "[pg_result $result -error]"
pg_result $result -clear
} else {
#puts "Payment: $p_w_id $p_d_id $p_c_w_id $p_c_d_id $p_c_id \
# $byname $p_h_amount $name 0 0 [ pg_result $result -list ]"
pg_result $result -clear
}
}
#ORDER_STATUS
proc ostat { lda w_id } {
#2.5.1.1 select district id randomly from home warehouse \
# where d_w_id = d_id
set d_id [ RandomNumber 1 10 ]
set nrnd [ NURand 255 0 999 123 ]
set name [ randname $nrnd ]
set c_id [ RandomNumber 1 3000 ]
set y [ RandomNumber 1 100 ]
if { $y <= 60 } {
set byname 1
} else {
set byname 0
set name {}
}
set date [ gettimestamp ]
set result [pg_exec $lda "call ostat($w_id,$d_id,$c_id,\ $byname,'$name','','',0.0,0,TO_TIMESTAMP('$date',\ 'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS')::timestamp without time zone,0,'')" ]
if {[pg_result $result -status] != "PGRES_TUPLES_OK"} {
error "[pg_result $result -error]"
pg_result $result -clear
} else {
#puts "Order Status: $w_id $d_id $c_id $byname $name \
# [ pg_result $result -list ]"
pg_result $result -clear
}
}
#DELIVERY
proc delivery { lda w_id } {
set carrier_id [ RandomNumber 1 10 ]
set date [ gettimestamp ]
set result [pg_exec $lda "call delivery($w_id,$carrier_id,\ TO_TIMESTAMP('$date',\
'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS')::timestamp without time zone)" ]
if {[pg_result $result -status] ni \
{"PGRES_TUPLES_OK" "PGRES_COMMAND_OK"}
} {
error "[pg_result $result -error]"
pg_result $result -clear
} else {
#puts "Delivery: $w_id $carrier_id [ pg_result $result -list ]"
pg_result $result -clear
}
}
#STOCK LEVEL
proc slev { lda w_id stock_level_d_id } {
set threshold [ RandomNumber 10 20 ]
set result [pg_exec $lda "call slev($w_id,\ $stock_level_d_id,$threshold,0)"]
if {[pg_result $result -status] ni
{"PGRES_TUPLES_OK" "PGRES_COMMAND_OK"}
} {
error "[pg_result $result -error]"
pg_result $result -clear
} else {
#puts "Stock Level: $w_id $stock_level_d_id $threshold \
# [ pg_result $result -list ]"
pg_result $result -clear
}
}

#RUN TPC-C
set lda [ ConnectToPostgres $host $port $sslmode $user $password $db ]
if { $lda eq "Failed" } {
error "error, the database connection to $host could not be \
established"
}
pg_select $lda "select max(w_id) from warehouse" w_id_input_arr {
set w_id_input $w_id_input_arr(max)
}
#2.4.1.1 set warehouse_id stays constant for a given terminal
set w_id [ RandomNumber 1 $w_id_input ]
pg_select $lda "select max(d_id) from district" d_id_input_arr {
set d_id_input $d_id_input_arr(max)
}
set stock_level_d_id [ RandomNumber 1 $d_id_input ]
puts "Processing $total_iterations transactions without output \
suppressed..."
for {set it 0} {$it < $total_iterations} {incr it} {
set choice [ RandomNumber 1 23 ]
if {$choice <= 10} {
neword $lda $w_id $w_id_input
} elseif {$choice <= 20} {
payment $lda $w_id $w_id_input
} elseif {$choice <= 21} {
delivery $lda $w_id
} elseif {$choice <= 22} {
slev $lda $w_id $stock_level_d_id
} elseif {$choice <= 23} {
ostat $lda $w_id
}
}
pg_disconnect $lda
thread::wait }]
}
vwait forever
```

and the same in Python called pgtest_thread.py

```
#!/usr/bin/python
import psycopg2
import sys
import random
import math
from datetime import datetime
import threading

def gettimestamp():
tstamp = datetime.now().strftime("%Y%m%d%H%M%S")
return tstamp

def nurand(iConst,x,y,C):
nrnd = ((((random.randint(0,iConst) | random.randint(x,y)) + C) %
(y - x + 1)) + x)
return nrnd

def randname(num):
namearr = [ "BAR", "OUGHT", "ABLE", "PRI", "PRES", "ESE", "ANTI",
"CALLY", "ATION", "EING" ]
pt1 = namearr[math.floor((num / 100) % 10)]
pt2 = namearr[math.floor((num / 10) % 10)]
pt3 = namearr[math.floor((num / 1) % 10)]
name = pt1 + pt2 + pt3
return name

def neword(cur, no_w_id, w_id_input):
#print("neword")
no_d_id = random.randint(1,10)
no_c_id = random.randint(1,3000)
ol_cnt = random.randint(5,15)
date = gettimestamp()
cur.execute('call neword(%s,%s,%s,%s,%s,0.0,\'\',\'\',0.0,0.0,0,\ TO_TIMESTAMP(%s,\'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS\')::timestamp without time zone)',\ (no_w_id,w_id_input,no_d_id,no_c_id,ol_cnt,date))
rows = cur.fetchall()
#print(rows)

def payment(cur, p_w_id, w_id_input):
#print("payment")
p_d_id = random.randint(1,10)
x = random.randint(1,100)
y = random.randint(1,100)
if (x <= 85):
p_c_d_id = p_d_id
p_c_w_id = p_w_id
else:
p_c_d_id = random.randint(1,10)
p_c_w_id = random.randint(1,w_id_input)
while (p_c_w_id == p_w_id) and (w_id_input != 1):
p_c_w_id = random.randint(1,w_id_input)

nrnd = nurand(255,0,999,123)
name = randname(nrnd)
p_c_id = random.randint(1,3000)
if (y <= 85):
byname = 1
else:
byname = 0
name = ""

p_h_amount = random.randint(1,5000)
h_date = gettimestamp()
p_c_since = gettimestamp()
cur.execute('call payment(%s,%s,%s,%s,%s,%s,\'0\',%s,%s,\'\',\'\',\ \'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\'\',\ \'\',\'\',TO_TIMESTAMP(%s,\
\'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS\')::timestamp without time zone,0.0,0.0,0.0,\'\',\ TO_TIMESTAMP(%s,\'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS\')::timestamp without time zone)',\ (p_w_id,p_d_id,p_c_w_id,p_c_d_id,byname,p_h_amount,name,p_c_id,\ p_c_since,h_date))
rows = cur.fetchall()
#print(rows)

def delivery(cur, w_id):
#print("delivery")
carrier_id = random.randint(1,10)
date = gettimestamp()
cur.execute('call delivery(%s,%s,TO_TIMESTAMP(%s,\ \'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS\')::time stamp without time zone)',\
(w_id,carrier_id,date))
#rows = cur.fetchall()
#print(rows)

def slev(cur, w_id, stock_level_d_id):
#print("slev" )
threshold = random.randint(10, 20)
cur.execute('call slev(%s,%s,%s,0)',(w_id,stock_level_d_id,\
threshold))
rows = cur.fetchall()
#print(rows)

def ostat(cur, w_id):
#print("ostat")
d_id = random.randint(1, 10)
nrnd = nurand(255,0,999,123)
name = randname(nrnd)
c_id = random.randint(1, 3000)
y = random.randint(1, 100)
if (y <= 60):
byname = 1
else:
byname = 0
name = ""

date = gettimestamp()
cur.execute('call ostat(%s,%s,%s,%s,%s,\'\',\'\',0.0,0,\ TO_TIMESTAMP(%s,\'YYYYMMDDHH24MISS\')::timestamp without time zone,0,\ \'\')',(w_id,d_id,c_id,byname,name,date))
rows = cur.fetchall()
#print(rows)

def runtpcc():
total_iterations = 1000000
conn = psycopg2.connect(host="localhost",port="5432",\ database="tpcc",user="tpcc",password="tpcc")
conn.set_session(autocommit=True)
cur = conn.cursor()
cur.execute("select max(w_id) from warehouse")
w_id_input = cur.fetchone()[0]
w_id = random.randint(1, w_id_input)
cur.execute("select max(d_id) from district")
d_id_input = cur.fetchone()[0]
stock_level_d_id = random.randint(1, d_id_input)
print ("Processing", total_iterations,
"transactions without output suppressed...")
for x in range(total_iterations):
choice = random.randint(1, 23)
if (choice <= 10):
neword (cur, w_id, w_id_input)
elif (choice <= 20):
payment (cur,w_id, w_id_input)
elif (choice <= 21):
delivery (cur, w_id)
elif (choice <= 22):
slev (cur, w_id, stock_level_d_id)
elif (choice <= 23):
ostat (cur, w_id)

if (x == total_iterations):
conn.close()

def main():
threads = []
for n in range(64):
t = threading.Thread(target=runtpcc)
threads.append(t)
t.start()

for t in threads:
t.join()

if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
```

It should be clear that these driver scripts do exactly the same
thing, they create multiple threads and loop calling the 5 TPROC-C
stored procedures meaning that on the PostgreSQL database the
workload itself is identical only the language calling the stored
procedures is different.

Building the Test Schema and Timing Script

Next we are going to build a PostgreSQL test schema using the HammerDB
CLI as follows:

```
dbset db pg
dbset bm TPC-C
vuset logtotemp 0
diset tpcc pg_superuser postgres
diset tpcc pg_superuserpass postgres
diset tpcc pg_storedprocs true
diset tpcc pg_count_ware 1000
diset tpcc pg_num_vu 64
buildschema
waittocomplete
quit
```

Finally we are going to build a HammerDB timing script. The key thing
to note is that we are going to set pg_total_iterations to 1, this
means that we have a special form of driver script that will time the
transactions on the database but will not run any transactions itself
to impact the load. This way we can run our external Tcl and Python
test scripts and capture the results.

```
dbset db pg
dbset bm TPC-C
diset tpcc pg_superuser steve
diset tpcc pg_defaultdbase postgres
diset tpcc pg_storedprocs true
diset tpcc pg_total_iterations 1
diset tpcc pg_driver timed
diset tpcc pg_rampup 0
diset tpcc pg_duration 2
vuset logtotemp 1
loadscript
vuset vu 1
tcstart
vucreate
vurun
runtimer 130
vudestroy
tcstop
```

If all is configured correctly when running either our Tcl or Python
driver script we will see output such as follows, note that Vuser 2
shows FINISHED SUCCESS just after it starts so the only activity that
this script is doing on the database is capturing the NOPM and TPM over
a time period, in this example 2 minutes.

```
$ ./hammerdbcli auto pgtime.tcl
HammerDB CLI v4.4
Copyright (C) 2003-2022 Steve Shaw
Type "help" for a list of commands
The xml is well-formed, applying configuration
Database set to PostgreSQL
Benchmark set to TPC-C for PostgreSQL
Changed tpcc:pg_superuser from postgres to steve for PostgreSQL
Value postgres for tpcc:pg_defaultdbase is the same as existing value \
postgres, no change made
Changed tpcc:pg_storedprocs from false to true for PostgreSQL
Changed tpcc:pg_total_iterations from 10000000 to 1 for PostgreSQL
Clearing Script, reload script to activate new setting
Script cleared
Changed tpcc:pg_driver from test to timed for PostgreSQL
Changed tpcc:pg_rampup from 2 to 0 for PostgreSQL
Changed tpcc:pg_duration from 5 to 2 for PostgreSQL
Script loaded, Type "print script" to view
Transaction Counter Started
Vuser 1 created MONITOR - WAIT IDLE
Vuser 2 created - WAIT IDLE
Logging activated
to /tmp/hammerdb.log
2 Virtual Users Created with Monitor VU
Vuser 1:RUNNING
Vuser 1:Beginning rampup time of 0 minutes
Vuser 1:Rampup complete, Taking start Transaction Count.
0 PostgreSQL tpm
Vuser 1:Timing test period of 2 in minutes
Vuser 2:RUNNING
Vuser 2:Processing 1 transactions with output suppressed...
Vuser 2:FINISHED SUCCESS
3650220 PostgreSQL tpm
4245132 PostgreSQL tpm
4203948 PostgreSQL tpm
4211748 PostgreSQL tpm
4203648 PostgreSQL tpm
Timer: 1 minutes elapsed
Vuser 1:1 ...,
4367244 PostgreSQL tpm
4265898 PostgreSQL tpm
4320510 PostgreSQL tpm
4258518 PostgreSQL tpm
4426578 PostgreSQL tpm
4413780 PostgreSQL tpm
Timer: 2 minutes elapsed
Vuser 1:2 ...,
Vuser 1:Test complete, Taking end Transaction Count.
Vuser 1:1 Active Virtual Users configured
Vuser 1:TEST RESULT : System achieved 1844256 NOPM from 4232155 \
PostgreSQL TPM
Vuser 1:FINISHED SUCCESS
ALL VIRTUAL USERS COMPLETE
```

Running a single process pre-test

Before we test the multithreading capabilities it is important to
callibrate how our respective scripts. For this we will use a slightly
modified version for both that removes the threading. We start these
running as follows for Python

```
python3 pgtest_proc.py
```

and as follows from the HammerDB directory (export the HammerDB ./lib
directory into the LD_LIBRARY_PATH first)

```
./bin/tclsh8.6 pgtest_proc.tcl
```

Once the workload is started we then run the timing script in another
command window and once we get the result we Ctrl-C the driver script
to stop the test.

In our single process test we see 62257 NOPM for Python and 64142 NOPM
for Tcl giving confidence that the test scripts and methodology are
correct (remember that the workload is running in PostgreSQL stored
procedures and the test is calling those stored procedures, so we
expect the single process result to be very close).

We can also use VizTracer to run the same workload under Python this
time in a single thread to understand a little about what the workload
should look like. For each stored procedure we calculate the parameters
with a number of random operations and then call
psycopg2.extensions.cursor.execute, during this we sleep while we wait
for the PostgreSQL database to execute the stored procedure and then we
run psycopg2.extensions.cursor.fetchall to fetch the results. In total
the Wall duration to run the neword stored procedure was 1.8ms.

Running the Mulithreaded Test

Now lets run a the multithreaded tests shown above. For each test we
are going to edit the script to change the number of threads testing at
1,2,4,8,16,32 and 64 threads with the following results.

At 1, 2 or 4 threads we barely notice a difference, however at 64
threads Python gives us 247976 NOPM and Tcl 1844256 NOPM meaning Tcl is
more than 700% faster for an identical workload once we start running
multiple threads.

So why is there such a marked contrast between an identical workload in
Python and Tcl? As an early indication we can take a look at the output
from top when running 64 threads. Firstly with Python observe that we
have 9 running tasks, 5.8% user CPU utilisation and all of the top
postgres processes show as idle.

```
Tasks: 1144 total, 9 running, 1135 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 5.8 us, 1.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 93.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.2 si, 0.0 st
MiB Mem : 772719.8 total, 581155.8 free, 6252.7 used, 185311.2 buff/cache
MiB Swap: 2048.0 total, 2048.0 free, 0.0 used. 711977.4 avail Mem

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
52656 postgres 20 0 5347252 25784 13644 S 178.8 0.0 0:44.94 python3 \
pgtest_thread.py
52794 postgres 20 0 49.3g 2.4g 2.4g S 10.9 0.3 0:02.83 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45366) idle
52663 postgres 20 0 49.3g 2.2g 2.2g S 10.3 0.3 0:02.88 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45234) idle
52721 postgres 20 0 49.3g 2.3g 2.3g S 10.3 0.3 0:02.75 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45292) idle
52778 postgres 20 0 49.3g 2.4g 2.4g S 10.3 0.3 0:02.82 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45350) idle
52784 postgres 20 0 49.3g 2.3g 2.3g S 10.3 0.3 0:02.81 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45356) idle
```

in contrast the same workload in Tcl shows that we have 64 running
tasks (for 64 threads) 53.1% CPU and the postgres processes are all
busy running stored procedures.

```
Tasks: 1143 total, 64 running, 1079 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 53.1 us, 6.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 40.0 id, 0.1 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.8 si, 0.0 st
MiB Mem : 772719.8 total, 578477.9 free, 9582.1 used, 184659.7 buff/cache
MiB Swap: 2048.0 total, 2048.0 free, 0.0 used. 708649.4 avail Mem

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
52329 postgres 20 0 5351472 222896 10216 S 441.3 0.0 1:33.25 \
./bin/tclsh8.6 pgtest_thread.tcl
52362 postgres 20 0 49.3g 5.5g 5.5g R 87.1 0.7 0:17.59 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45114) CALL
52408 postgres 20 0 49.3g 6.0g 6.0g R 87.1 0.8 0:17.49 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45160) CALL
52338 postgres 20 0 49.3g 6.0g 6.0g R 86.8 0.8 0:17.63 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45086) CALL
52344 postgres 20 0 49.3g 6.2g 6.2g R 86.8 0.8 0:17.63 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45096) CALL
52348 postgres 20 0 49.3g 4.5g 4.5g S 86.8 0.6 0:17.42 postgres: \
tpcc tpcc ::1(45100) CALL
```

Analyzing the Python GIL

So, if you have read this far you won’t be surprised that we suspect
that the roadblock we have encountered with Python is a major one
called the Global Interpreter Lock or GIL that means only one thread
can run at any one time. But lets confirm this using the GIL load tool
to time the amount of time that the GIL is held for our 64 thread
workload. The tool is installed and run as follows:

```
pip install gil_load
python3 -m gil_load pgtest_thread_gil.py
```

and we add gil_load.start and gil_load.stop to the Python script and
run a smaller number of transactions without timing the test. The
following is the result. The GIL is held for 77% of the time and the
threads wait for the GIL 99.9% of the time. For Tcl this is 0% and 0%
respectively because there is no GIL meaning Tcl threads execute in
parallel and the workload continues to scale.

The difference between the two also shows that there is time when we
are synchronizing between the threads and not running any workload at
all. As our results show the more threads we add the worse the
performance gets due to this GIL synchronization.

```
held: 0.771 (0.774, 0.771, 0.771)
wait: 0.999 (0.998, 0.999, 0.999)
<140263890196288>
held: 0.0 (0.0, 0.0, 0.0)
wait: 0.0 (0.0, 0.0, 0.0)
<140263853995776>
held: 0.008 (0.008, 0.008, 0.008)
wait: 0.903 (0.887, 0.902, 0.903)
<140263845603072>
held: 0.01 (0.01, 0.01, 0.01)
wait: 0.904 (0.888, 0.903, 0.904)
...
<140257727084288>
held: 0.01 (0.01, 0.01, 0.01)
wait: 0.904 (0.892, 0.904, 0.904)
```

If we now return to VizTracer and perf using the method described here
to trace Python with 16 threads we can now see that the Wall Duration
time for the neword stored procedure has increased by 300% and we are
spending a lot longer sleeping with only one thread allowed to execute
at any one time. PostgreSQL can sustain higher throughput but our
Python client cannot.

Python GIL PostgreSQL wait events

So if the bottleneck is in the client what wait event would we expect
to see on our PostgreSQL database? To do this we can use the
pg_stat_statements and pg_sentinel packages to query the active session
history with the SQL as follows:
Copy Code Copied Use a different Browser

```
with ash as (
select *,ceil(extract(epoch from max(ash_time)over()-
min(ash_time)over()))::numeric samples
from pg_active_session_history
where ash_time>=current_timestamp - interval '10 minutes'
) select
round(100 * count(*)/sum(count(*)) over(),0) as "%",
round(count(*)/samples,2) as "AAS",
datname,wait_event_type,wait_event
from ash
group by samples,
datname,wait_event_type,wait_event
order by 1 desc
;
```

with the results as follows on Python:

```
% | AAS | datname | wait_event_type | wait_event ----+------+---------+-----------------+--------------------
62 | 4.10 | tpcc | Client | ClientRead
33 | 2.19 | tpcc | CPU | CPU
3 | 0.18 | tpcc | LWLock | pg_stat_statements
1 | 0.06 | tpcc | IO | DataFileRead
1 | 0.03 | tpcc | LWLock | WALInsert
0 | 0.01 | tpcc | IO | SLRURead
0 | 0.01 | tpcc | IO | DataFileExtend
0 | 0.01 | tpcc | Timeout | VacuumDelay
0 | 0.00 | tpcc | IO | DataFileWrite
(9 rows)
```

and as follows on Tcl.

```
% | AAS | datname | wait_event_type | wait_event ----+-------+---------+-----------------+----------------------
60 | 34.76 | tpcc | CPU | CPU
26 | 15.12 | tpcc | LWLock | pg_stat_statements
7 | 3.88 | tpcc | LWLock | WALInsert
4 | 2.48 | tpcc | Client | ClientRead
1 | 0.52 | tpcc | IO | DataFileRead
1 | 0.32 | tpcc | Lock | extend
0 | 0.02 | tpcc | IO | SLRURead
0 | 0.03 | tpcc | LWLock | XidGen
0 | 0.26 | tpcc | Lock | transactionid
0 | 0.23 | tpcc | IPC | ProcArrayGroupUpdate
0 | 0.03 | tpcc | LWLock | LockManager
0 | 0.02 | tpcc | LWLock | BufferContent
0 | 0.12 | tpcc | LWLock | WALWrite
0 | 0.08 | tpcc | LWLock | XactSLRU
0 | 0.02 | tpcc | IO | DataFileExtend
0 | 0.26 | tpcc | LWLock | ProcArray
(16 rows)
```

So when using Python we are spending 62% of our time on a Client wait
event called ClientRead or in other words PostgreSQL is telling us it
is spending most of its time waiting for the Python client to respond,
either the transaction has finished and it is waiting for Python to
fetch the results or it has already fetched the results and is waiting
for the next query to be sent. Either way high waits on ClientRead
means we are waiting for the client and not the database. Also note
that with the Tcl workload we now start to see some of the LWLock wait
events that a database engineer working on scalability would focus on
and we can use the HammerDB PostgreSQL statistics viewer to drill down
on some of these wait events.

Summary

What we have observed is that the Python GIL makes it impossible to run
anything but a single threaded benchmark against a database because the
GIL means that only one thread can ever run at one time. For decades
databases have been designed to scale to process millions of
transactions a minute whilst maintaining database consistency, a
serialized benchmark client compromises the ability to compare
databases.

HammerDB and its predecessor Hammerora were written in the Tcl language
because they were written by database engineers looking to write
scalable database benchmarks rather than by application engineers
looking to use a particular language. At the time Tcl was the only
multi-threaded GIL free scripting language for database access and this
still holds true today. (And although the Python test script could run
in multiple processes HammerDB is an application simulating multiple
virtual users in a GUI and CLI environment requiring the close
interaction and control of using multiple threads).

*700% Faster

Although we have seen that Tcl is 700% faster than Python for our
example PostgreSQL benchmark we observed that even with Tcl we were
only at approximately 50% CPU Utilization. With commerical databases
HammerDB can scale to full CPU utilization and 2-3X the transaction
rate seen here meaning that in reality the gap between Tcl and Python
running against a commericial database is more than 700%.

From: https://www.hammerdb.com/blog/uncategorized/ why-tcl-is-700-faster-than-python-for-database-benchmarking/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)