start organizing notes into subdirectories

1 files changed, 82 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/notes/performance/speed.txt b/notes/performance/speed.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f885aea7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/notes/performance/speed.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+
+## Early Prototyping
+
+### 2018-04-23
+
+- fatcat as marshmallow+sqlalchemy+flask, with API client
+- no refs, contibs, files, release contribs, containers, etc
+- no extra_json
+- sqlite
+- laptop
+- editgroup every 250 edits
+
+
+    /data/crossref/crossref-works.2018-01-21.badsample_5k.json
+
+    real    3m42.912s
+    user    0m20.448s
+    sys     0m2.852s
+
+    ~22 lines per second
+    12.5 hours per million
+    ~52 days for crossref (100 million)
+
+target:
+    crossref (100 million) loaded in 48 hours
+    579 lines per second
+    this test in under 10 seconds
+    ... but could be in parallel
+
+same except postgres, via:
+
+    docker run -p 5432:5432 postgres:latest
+    ./run.py --init-db --database-uri postgres://postgres@localhost:5432
+    ./run.py --database-uri postgres://postgres@localhost:5432
+
+    API processing using 60-100% of a core. postgres 12% of a core;
+    docker-proxy similar (!). overall 70 of system CPU idle.
+
+    real    2m27.771s
+    user    0m22.860s
+    sys     0m2.852s
+
+no profiling yet; need to look at database ops. probably don't even have any
+indices!
+
+## Rust Updates (2018-05-23)
+
+Re-running with tweaked python code, 5k sample file, postgres 9.6 running locally (not in docker):
+
+    real    2m27.598s
+    user    0m24.892s
+    sys     0m2.836s
+
+Using postgres and fatcat rust:
+
+    real    0m44.443s
+    user    0m25.288s
+    sys     0m0.880s
+
+api_client about half a core; fatcatd 3x processes, about 10% each; postgres
+very small.
+
+a bit faster, basically maxing out CPU:
+
+    time cat /data/crossref/crossref-works.2018-01-21.badsample_5k.json | parallel -j4 --pipe ./fatcat_client.py --host-url http://localhost:9411 ic -
+
+    real    0m28.998s
+    user    1m5.304s
+    sys     0m3.420s
+
+    200 lines per second; within a factor of 3; can perhaps hit target with
+    non-python client?
+
+python processes (clients) seem to be CPU limit in this case; all 4 cores
+effectively maxed out.
+
+running python again in parallel mode:
+
+    real    2m29.532s
+    user    0m47.692s
+    sys     0m4.840s
+