I'm trying to accelerate the performance of my app and wonder if there is a difference between accessing domain property value with instance.name and instance.getName()
If it is, which one is the best in terms of performance ?
Example
class User {
String name
}
User user = User.get(100);
//is it better this way
user.name
//or this way
user.getName()
Thank you
It doesn't matter for the usage you've provided, because user.name uses user.getName() behind scenes. So it's the same. If you want to access property directly you have to use # like this user.#name. See more here
But I don't think this is the way you can speed up your app.
It is very likely you will find a lot easier ways for improving performance of your code. Here are some ideas where to start if you like to improve performance.
A) Number of queries. Try to avoid the the N+1 problem. For example if one user hasMany [events: Event], code like user.events.each { access event.anyPropertyExceptId } will dispatch new queries for each event.
B) Efficiency of queries. Grails per default creates indexes for all gorm associations / other nested domains. However anything you use to search, filter etc. you need to do "manually" for example.
static mapping = {
anyDomainProperty index: 'customIndexName'
}
C) Only query for the data you are interested in, replace for example:
User.all.each { user ->
println user.events.size()
}
with
Event.withCriteria {
projections {
property('user')
countDistinct('id')
groupProperty('user')
}
}
D) If you really need to speed up your groovy code and your problem is rather a single request than general cpu usage, take a look at http://gpars.codehaus.org and http://grails.org/doc/2.3.8/guide/async.html and try to parallize work.
I doubt any performance issues in your application are related to how you are accessing your properties of your domain classes. In fact, if you profile/measure your application I'm sure you will see that is the case.
Related
Problem:
We're querying our database with a lot of entries. The overall application performance is okay. But I think it could be better if our bottleneck, querying a special table, could be done parallel.
We are using for that dynamic finders like:
Object.findAllByObjectCollectionAndParentIsNullAndDeletedByUserIsNull(objectCollection, [sort: 'attr1.number', fetch: [objectType: 'eager']])
I think about this solution: Dividing the query into 2 steps.
The first step loads only the Ids in a sorted way.
The second step (could be done in parallel threads) loads the objects itself by the id and inserts it into the resultset.
I already googled for some hints about that, but find nothing.
Is it possible, that it makes no sense?
Or is there already a adequate solution in grails standard/extensions?
If it makes sense and there is no solution: Can someone give me a hint implementing it? But, we need the ids in that sorted manner, explained in the example.
We're using grails 2.3.11, hibernate:3.6.10.13 with jdk 1.7 under it.
I found a solution!
ArrayList<Long> objectIds = Attribute.executeQuery("select o.id from Object o, ObjectType ot where o.objectCollection = :oc and o.parent is null and o.deletedByUser is null and oc.typeUsage = ot order by ot.nr asc", [oc: objectCollection])
Object[] tmp = new Object[objectIds.size()]
withPool(10, {
objectIds.eachWithIndexParallel {
Long objectId, i ->
Object o = Object.findById(objectId, [cache: true])
tmp[i] = a
}
})
for (Object a : tmp)
a.merge()
Its round about 3 times slower!
I think the reason is, that
we have to create the threads and databaseconnections too.
After loading the objects, they need to be merged into our local thread.
But in the end - we cant use it, beause the lazy loaded fields couldn't be loaded on demand later. So this could be only a solution for read-only Objects
Ok i'm wondering what is the best way to implement my scenario.
My objects are as follows:
ProjectCategory has many Projects. Projects have a ProjectStatus. ProjectStatus has a property called name and name can be either "Closed" or "Open" etc...
I'm trying to display on a page all categories and the number of opened projects for that category next to the category name.
How would I go about doing that. The problem I'm seeing is that (using grails gorm) is that by default you cannot do something like
category.findAll{ it.status.name == "Opened" }.size()
because the objects are not loaded that deep. Now If I forced them to load, now for all categories I'm potentially loading a bunch of projects just to get the status. Wouldn't the system take a huge hit in performance the higher amount of projects you have?
The thought of creating a counter in the category and updating it every time a project status changes makes me cringe.
I must just be sleep deprived because I can't see what the proper way of doing this would be. If the way I mentioned first with the .findAll is the way to go, do I really have to worry about performance? How would I go about implementing that?
Thanks in advance for all your help.
I would use HQL. Assuming Projects belong to a ProjectCategory, you could add something like this to your ProjectCategory class:
class ProjectCategory {
// Fields/Methods
def getOpenedProjectsCount() {
ProjectCategory.executeQuery("SELECT count(*) FROM Projects p WHERE p.projectCategory = :projectCategory AND p.projectStatus.name = 'Opened'", [projectCategory: this])
}
}
Then when you have a ProjectCategory instance you can use the openedProjectsCount property:
def projectCategory = ProjectCategory.get(123)
projectCategory.openedProjectsCount
I have two object, a room type and a reservation. Simplified they are:
class Room {
String description
int quantity
}
class Reservation {
String who
Room room
}
I want to query for all rooms along with the number of rooms available for each type. In SQL this does what I want:
select id, quantity, occupied, quantity-coalesce(occupied, 0) as available
from room left join(select room_id, count(room_id) as occupied from reservation)
on id = room_id;
I'm not getting anywhere trying to work out how to do this with HQL.
I'd appreciate any pointers since it seems like I'm missing something fairly fundamental in either HQL or GORM.
The problem here is your trying to represent fields that are not your domain classes like available and occupied. Trying to get HQL\GORM to do this can be a bit a little frustrating, but not impossible. I think you have a couple options here...
1.) Build your domain classes so that there easier to use. Maybe your Room needs to know about it's Reservations via a mapping table or, perhaps write what you want the code to look like and then adjust the design.
For example. Maybe you want your code to look like this...
RoomReservation.queryAllByRoomAndDateBetween(room, arrivalDate, departureDate);
Then you would implement it like this...
class RoomReservation{
...
def queryAllByRoomAndDateBetween(def room, Date arrivalDate, Date departureDate){
return RoomReservation.withCriteria {
eq('room', room)
and {
between('departureDate', arrivalDate, departureDate)
}
}
}
2.) My second thought is... It's okay to use the database for what it's good for. Sometimes using sql in you code is simply the most effective way to do something. Just do it in moderation and keep it centralized and unit tested. I don't suggest you use this approach because you query isn't that complex, but it is an option. I use stored procedures for things like 'dashboard view's' that query millions of objects for summary data.
class Room{
...
def queryReservations(){
def sql = new Sql(dataSoruce);
return sql.call("{call GetReservations(?)}", [this.id]) //<-- stored procedure.
}
}
I'm not sure how you can describe a left join with a subquery in HQL. INn any case you can easily execute raw SQL in grails too, if HQL is not expressive enough:
in your service, inject the dataSource and create a groovy.sql.Sql instance
def dataSource
[...]
def sql= new Sql(dataSource)
sql.eachRow("...."){row->
[...]
}
I know it's very annoying when people try to patronize you into their way of thinking when you ask a question, instead of answering your question or just shut up, but in my opinion, this query is sufficiently complex that I would create a concept for this number in my data structure, perhaps an Availability table associated to the Room, which would keep count not only of the quantity but also of the occupied value.
This is instead of computing it every time you need it.
Just my $.02 just ignore it if it annoys you.
I've got a domain class, Widget, that I need to delete all instances out of -- clear it out. After that, I will load in fresh data. What do you suggest as a mechanism to do this?
P.S. Note this is not at bootstrap time, but at "run-time".
The easiest way is to use HQL directly:
DomainClass.executeUpdate('delete from DomainClass')
DomainClass.findAll().each { it.delete() }
If you want to avoid any GORM gotchas, such as needing to delete the object immediately and checking to make sure it actually gets deleted, add some arguments.
DomainClass.findAll().each { it.delete(flush:true, failOnError:true) }
Fairly old post, but still actual.
If your table is very large (millions of entries), iterating using findall()*.delete() might not be the best option, as you can run into transaction timeouts (e.g. MySQL innodb_lock_wait_timeout setting) besides potential memory problems stated by GreenGiant.
So at least for MySQL Innodb, much faster is to use TRUNCATE TABLE:
sessionFactory.currentSession
.createSQLQuery("truncate table ${sessionFactory.getClassMetadata(MyDomainClass).tableName}")
.executeUpdate()
This is only useful if your table is not referenced by other objects as a foreign key.
From what I learnt, I agree with #ataylor the below code is fastest IF there are no associations in your domain object (Highly unlikely in any real application):
DomainClass.executeUpdate('delete from DomainClass')
But if you have assiciations with other domains, then the safest way to delete (and also a bit slower than the one mentioned above) would be the following:
def domainObjects = DomainClass.findAll()
domainObjects.each {
it.delete(flush:it==domainObjects.last, failOnError:true)
}
If you have a list of objects and want to delete all elements, you can use * operator.
'*' will split the list and pass its elements as separate arguments.
Example.
List<Book> books = Book.findAllByTitle('grails')
books*.delete()
I have no idea if I'm doing this right, but this is how a Get method in my repository looks:
public IQueryable<User> GetUsers(IEnumerable<Expression<Func<User, object>>> eagerLoading)
{
IQueryable<User> query = db.Users.AsNoTracking();
if (eagerLoading != null)
{
foreach (var expression in eagerLoading)
{
query = query.Include(expression);
}
}
return query;
}
Lets say I also have a GeographyRepository that has GetCountries method, which is similar to this.
I have 2 separate service layer classes calling these 2 separate repositories, sharing the same DbContext (EF 4.1 code-first).
So in my controller, I'd do:
myViewModel.User = userService.GetUserById(1);
myViewModel.Countries = geoService.GetCountries();
This is 2 separate calls to the database. If I didn't use these patterns and tie up the interface and database, I'd have 1 call. I guess its something of a performance vs maintainability.
My question is, can this be pushed to 1 database call? Can we merge queries like this when views calls multiple repositories?
I'd say that if performance is the real issue then I'd try and avoid going back to the database altogether. I'm assuming the list returned from geoService.GetCountries() is fairly static, so I'd be inclined to cache it in the service after the initial load and remove the database hit altogether. The fact that you have a service there suggests that it would be the perfect place to abstract away such details.
Generally when asking questions about performance, it's rare that all perf related issues can be tarred with the same brush and you need to analyse each situation and work out an appropriate solution for the specific perf issue you're having.