-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix!: migrate argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
#13779
Conversation
With PostgreSQL, the `argo_archived_workflows.workflow` column has been of type `json` ever since 8a1e611, which was released as v2.5.0. Therefore, the `::json` casts do nothing, and prevent users from improving performance by migrating to JSONB using the following query: ```sql alter table argo_archived_workflows alter column workflow set data type jsonb using workflow::jsonb ``` Without the changes in this PR, running the above will massively slow down the queries, because casting JSONB to JSON is expensive. With the changes in this PR, it improves performance by ~80%, which I determined by running the benchmarks added in argoproj#13767 against a DB with 100,000 randomly generated workflows generated by argoproj#13715: ``` $ benchstat postgres_before_10000_workflows.txt postgres_after_10000_workflows.txt goos: linux goarch: amd64 pkg: github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/test/e2e cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-12400 │ postgres_before_10000_workflows.txt │ postgres_after_10000_workflows.txt │ │ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │ WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows-12 185.81m ± ∞ ¹ 25.06m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows_with_label_selector-12 186.35m ± ∞ ¹ 25.99m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/CountWorkflows-12 42.39m ± ∞ ¹ 11.78m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² geomean 113.6m 19.72m -82.64% ¹ need >= 6 samples for confidence interval at level 0.95 ² need >= 4 samples to detect a difference at alpha level 0.05 ``` The only downside to migrating to JSONB is it can take a long time if you've got a ton of workflows (~72s on my local DB with 100,000 workflows). I'll enter a separate PR for the migration, but I'm entering this change separately so it can hopefully go out in 3.6.0. Signed-off-by: Mason Malone <[email protected]>
…j#13601 As explained in argoproj#13601 (comment), I believe argoproj#12912 introduced a performance regression when listing workflows for PostgreSQL users. Reverting that PR could re-introduce the memory issues mentioned in the PR description, so instead this mitigates the impact by converting the `workflow` column to be of type `jsonb`. Initially `workflow` was of type `text`, and was migrated to `json` in argoproj#2152. I'm not sure why `jsonb` wasn't chosen, but [based on this comment in the linked issue](argoproj#2133 (comment)), I think it was simply an oversight. Here's the relevant docs (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-json.html): > The json and jsonb data types accept almost identical sets of values as input. The major practical difference is one of efficiency. The json data type stores an exact copy of the input text, which processing functions must reparse on each execution; while jsonb data is stored in a decomposed binary format that makes it slightly slower to input due to added conversion overhead, but significantly faster to process, since no reparsing is needed. jsonb also supports indexing, which can be a significant advantage. > > Because the json type stores an exact copy of the input text, it will preserve semantically-insignificant white space between tokens, as well as the order of keys within JSON objects. Also, if a JSON object within the value contains the same key more than once, all the key/value pairs are kept. (The processing functions consider the last value as the operative one.) By contrast, jsonb does not preserve white space, does not preserve the order of object keys, and does not keep duplicate object keys. If duplicate keys are specified in the input, only the last value is kept. > > In general, most applications should prefer to store JSON data as jsonb, unless there are quite specialized needs, such as legacy assumptions about ordering of object keys. I'm pretty sure we don't care about key order or whitespace. We do care somewhat about insertion speed, but archived workflows are read much more frequently than written, so a slight reduction in write speed that gives a large improvement in read speed is a good tradeoff. Here's steps to test this: 1. Use argoproj#13715 to generate 100,000 randomized workflows, with https://gist.github.com/MasonM/52932ff6644c3c0ccea9e847780bfd90 as a template: ``` $ time go run ./hack/db fake-archived-workflows --template "@very-large-workflow.yaml" --rows 100000 Using seed 1935828722624432788 Clusters: [default] Namespaces: [argo] Inserted 100000 rows real 18m35.316s user 3m2.447s sys 0m44.972s ``` 2. Run the benchmarks using argoproj#13767: ``` make BenchmarkWorkflowArchive > postgres_before_10000_workflows.txt ``` 3. Run the migration the DB CLI: ``` $ time go run ./hack/db migrate INFO[0000] Migrating database schema clusterName=default dbType=postgres INFO[0000] applying database change change="alter table argo_archived_workflows alter column workflow set data type jsonb using workflow::jsonb" changeSchemaVersion=60 2024/10/17 18:07:42 Session ID: 00001 Query: alter table argo_archived_workflows alter column workflow set data type jsonb using workflow::jsonb Stack: fmt.(*pp).handleMethods@/usr/local/go/src/fmt/print.go:673 fmt.(*pp).printArg@/usr/local/go/src/fmt/print.go:756 fmt.(*pp).doPrint@/usr/local/go/src/fmt/print.go:1208 fmt.Append@/usr/local/go/src/fmt/print.go:289 log.(*Logger).Print.func1@/usr/local/go/src/log/log.go:261 log.(*Logger).output@/usr/local/go/src/log/log.go:238 log.(*Logger).Print@/usr/local/go/src/log/log.go:260 github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/persist/sqldb.ansiSQLChange.apply@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/persist/sqldb/ansi_sql_change.go:11 github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/persist/sqldb.migrate.applyChange.func1@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/persist/sqldb/migrate.go:295 github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/persist/sqldb.migrate.applyChange@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/persist/sqldb/migrate.go:284 github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/persist/sqldb.migrate.Exec@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/persist/sqldb/migrate.go:273 main.NewMigrateCommand.func1@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/hack/db/main.go:50 github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).execute@/home/vscode/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:985 github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).ExecuteC@/home/vscode/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:1117 github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).Execute@/home/vscode/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:1041 main.main@/home/vscode/go/src/github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/hack/db/main.go:39 runtime.main@/usr/local/go/src/runtime/proc.go:272 runtime.goexit@/usr/local/go/src/runtime/asm_amd64.s:1700 Rows affected: 0 Error: upper: slow query Time taken: 69.12755s Context: context.Background real 1m10.087s user 0m1.541s sys 0m0.410s ``` 2. Re-run the benchmarks: ``` make BenchmarkWorkflowArchive > postgres_after_10000_workflows.txt ``` 4. Compare results using [benchstat](https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/perf/cmd/benchstat): ``` $ benchstat postgres_before_10000_workflows3.txt postgres_after_10000_workflows2.txt goos: linux goarch: amd64 pkg: github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3/test/e2e cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-12400 │ postgres_before_10000_workflows3.txt │ postgres_after_10000_workflows2.txt │ │ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │ WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows-12 183.83m ± ∞ ¹ 24.69m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows_with_label_selector-12 192.71m ± ∞ ¹ 25.87m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/CountWorkflows-12 13.04m ± ∞ ¹ 11.75m ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² geomean 77.31m 19.58m -74.68% ¹ need >= 6 samples for confidence interval at level 0.95 ² need >= 4 samples to detect a difference at alpha level 0.05 │ postgres_before_10000_workflows3.txt │ postgres_after_10000_workflows2.txt │ │ B/op │ B/op vs base │ WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows-12 497.2Ki ± ∞ ¹ 497.5Ki ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows_with_label_selector-12 503.1Ki ± ∞ ¹ 503.9Ki ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/CountWorkflows-12 8.972Ki ± ∞ ¹ 8.899Ki ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² geomean 130.9Ki 130.7Ki -0.20% ¹ need >= 6 samples for confidence interval at level 0.95 ² need >= 4 samples to detect a difference at alpha level 0.05 │ postgres_before_10000_workflows3.txt │ postgres_after_10000_workflows2.txt │ │ allocs/op │ allocs/op vs base │ WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows-12 8.373k ± ∞ ¹ 8.370k ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/ListWorkflows_with_label_selector-12 8.410k ± ∞ ¹ 8.406k ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ² WorkflowArchive/CountWorkflows-12 212.0 ± ∞ ¹ 212.0 ± ∞ ¹ ~ (p=1.000 n=1) ³ geomean 2.462k 2.462k -0.03% ¹ need >= 6 samples for confidence interval at level 0.95 ² need >= 4 samples to detect a difference at alpha level 0.05 ³ all samples are equal ``` Signed-off-by: Mason Malone <[email protected]>
argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to JSONB. Fixes #13601argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
. Fixes #13601
argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
. Fixes #13601argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
. Fixes #13601
I've marked the title as breaking here (
I also don't think this fully fixes #13601 since it does not affect MySQL, is significantly faster than JSON in Postgres, but can still take multiple seconds, and doesn't resolve the description of the issue either, rather another related performance issue brought up in the thread |
argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
. Fixes #13601argo_archived_workflows.workflow
to jsonb
@agilgur5 Okay, I removed references to #13601 from the title and description. The reason I referenced it is because nearly all the comments in that issue (and the user reports) are about general performance issues with PostgreSQL, which this PR addresses, but you're right it doesn't address MySQL or the index optimization mentioned ( I did try benchmarking the index optimization, but the performance improvement was very small, which is why I didn't include it here:
|
Also I'm pretty sure that's solely due to the JSON cast issue fixed in #13777 (and this PR). I spent over a week trying to reproduce that and I can't. I think it's best to focus on the issues we can reproduce first. |
It would still be better and less complex than a whole subquery IMO
You believe the cast itself adding multiple seconds to a query? Certainly possible, but that would be even more surprising than the index misses or existing JSON inefficiencies with this issue in the past 😅
Sure, I just don't think we should necessarily close out the issue until we've ironed out all the remaining loose items, especially as I made the issue intentionally to cover all the remaining loose items after the previous ones |
It slows it down by over 2x on my machine. But you don't have to take my word for it, because you can reproduce this yourself by following in the instructions in the PR. Just revert the changes made to Here's the benchstat output I get:
Okay, that's reasonable. |
The cast alone? 👀 👀 As far as I could tell, here and in #13777 you mentioned both removing the cast and moving to JSONB
You had also said "pretty sure" before, so I thought you hadn't narrowed that down yet |
I am not sure how I feel about this change. Whilst I completely agree with the goal of speed, it changes the behaviour of archiving in subtle but surprising ways. We would end up have two different behaviours depending upon whether you're using mysql or postgres. If you want a 'perfect archive' (which for some users may be something they care about, perhaps compliance reasons), you must use mysql. I can't see a mechanism whereby we would end up with bugs with duplicate keys, but archived workflows in postgres would hide them after this change. We should document this change because it's reasonable to expect the contents of an archived workflow to exactly match that of that workflow before archiving, and that won't be the case. Have you considered an option (which most people wouldn't use) to store and present the textual version, but query via |
According to this documentation mysql performs some kind of json normalization during json insertion: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/json.html I checked this also on https://www.db-fiddle.com/. Maybe someone with mysql access could also verify it. However, it seems that currently mysql does not perform perfect archive and this is different behaviour from what current implementation in postgres does. |
The comment you linked (#13601 (comment)) said "I tested converting json to jsonb and observed times approximately 9s." I'm assuming this was measured with the cast present (i.e. the current behavior), since that's the only scenario where I could reproduce such a slowdown. There may be other scenarios, but there's too many variables involved for me to narrow it down further.
As @kodieg correctly pointed out, MySQL is already stripping whitespace and eliminating duplicate keys, so this PR actually makes the behavior more consistent, not less. You can verify this yourself by following these steps:
|
Signed-off-by: Mason Malone <[email protected]>
Ok, so if we're going to get this in for 3.6 it should have some notes as to its effect in |
Migrations happen automatically during upgrades, so it only needs a note that it will happen, not how to do it. |
Ah, sorry, that was unclear. I was meaning referring to this in the original issue description:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will document this in a separate PR
This adds some additional details about argoproj#13779, primarily to assist users with a very large number of archived workflows who may not be comfortable with extended downtime. I tested the manual migration strategy locally after populating my local database with 100,000 rows using argoproj#13715: ``` $ time make postgres-cli < migrate_before.sql GIT_COMMIT=f25960ac6f63bc3cf1a3b8a9813cf43c61921262 GIT_BRANCH=fix-migrate-jsonb GIT_TAG=untagged GIT_TREE_STATE=dirty RELEASE_TAG=false DEV_BRANCH=true VERSION=latest KUBECTX=k3d-k3s-default DOCKER_DESKTOP=false K3D=true DOCKER_PUSH=false TARGET_PLATFORM=linux/amd64 RUN_MODE=local PROFILE=minimal AUTH_MODE=hybrid SECURE=false STATIC_FILES=false ALWAYS_OFFLOAD_NODE_STATUS=false UPPERIO_DB_DEBUG=0 LOG_LEVEL=debug NAMESPACED=true kubectl exec -ti svc/postgres -- psql -U postgres Unable to use a TTY - input is not a terminal or the right kind of file ALTER TABLE CREATE FUNCTION CREATE TRIGGER UPDATE 100000 real 1m16.118s user 0m2.639s sys 0m0.548s $ time make postgres-cli < migrate_after.sql GIT_COMMIT=49ff7a44ba307416282a1f5cd3b844d19bce7f88 GIT_BRANCH=main GIT_TAG=untagged GIT_TREE_STATE=dirty RELEASE_TAG=false DEV_BRANCH=false VERSION=latest KUBECTX=k3d-k3s-default DOCKER_DESKTOP=false K3D=true DOCKER_PUSH=false TARGET_PLATFORM=linux/amd64 RUN_MODE=local PROFILE=minimal AUTH_MODE=hybrid SECURE=false STATIC_FILES=true ALWAYS_OFFLOAD_NODE_STATUS=false UPPERIO_DB_DEBUG=0 LOG_LEVEL=debug NAMESPACED=true kubectl exec -ti svc/postgres -- psql -U postgres Unable to use a TTY - input is not a terminal or the right kind of file BEGIN LOCK TABLE DROP TRIGGER ALTER TABLE ALTER TABLE ALTER TABLE COMMIT real 0m1.503s user 0m2.786s sys 0m0.540s ``` Signed-off-by: Mason Malone <[email protected]>
Motivation
As explained in #13601 (comment), I believe #12912 introduced a performance regression when listing workflows for PostgreSQL users due to TOAST issues. Reverting that PR would solve that particular issue, but it could re-introduce the memory issues mentioned in the PR description. Instead, this mitigates the impact by converting the
workflow
column to be of typejsonb
.Modifications
Initially
workflow
was of typetext
, and was migrated tojson
in #2152. I'm not sure whyjsonb
wasn't chosen, but based on this comment in the linked issue, I think it was simply an oversight. It's possible compatibility with older PostgreSQL versions was a concern. Support forjsonb
was introduced in PostgreSQL 9.4, and PostgreSQL 9.3 became end-of-life on November 8, 2018. I don't think we should be concerned about breaking compatibility with EOL PostgreSQL versions, especially versions that have been EOL for nearly 6 years.Here's what the relevant docs say about choosing between
json
andjsonb
:I'm pretty sure we don't care about key order or whitespace. We do care somewhat about insertion speed, but archived workflows are read much more frequently than written, so a slight reduction in write speed that gives a large improvement in read speed is a good tradeoff. As the benchmarks below show, this gives a ~75% performance improvement for calls to
ListWorkflows()
.The biggest problem with this change is the time needed for the migration. With my local DB populated with 100,000 records, it takes ~70s (see below). The good news is this is fully backwards-compatible, and users can opt to manually run
alter table argo_archived_workflows alter column workflow set data type jsonb using workflow::jsonb
in their DB before upgrading. We'll probably want to add a prominent warning about this.Verification
Here's steps to test this:
Use test: simple DB CLI for local development #13715 to generate 100,000 randomized workflows, with https://gist.github.com/MasonM/52932ff6644c3c0ccea9e847780bfd90 as a template:
Run the benchmarks using test: basic benchmarks for workflow archive DB operations #13767:
Run the migration the DB CLI:
Note: the
upper: slow query
error is harmless and doesn't impact the migration.Re-run the benchmarks:
Compare results using benchstat: