ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
63% Positive
Analyzed from 1322 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#sqlite#per#polling#process#millisecond#every#need#https#select#database

Discussion (46 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I think (respectfully) the LLM that probably wrote this overshot the mark here because busy-polling a select does not actually sound better to me than a "kernel file watcher".
Love Fly.
This reminds me of the teenager who told her dad that she was just a tiny little bit pregnant.
I wonder if using a tiny Redis instance, or even something like LevelDB would be even more efficient.
(read that in the way of "think of the children!")
And if you are making changes, don't you have to poll regardless after the file watcher wakes you?
For WAL mode, SQLite can probably satisfy this query just by inspecting some shared memory. But it is busy waiting, sure.
This has a thread running in the background trying to catch changes made by other connections, potentially (I'm not sure here, but I suspect as much) in different processes that are modifying the same database.
k3s has been running on my home server for about three years now (using the default SQLite backend), and there doesn't seem to be excessive CPU usage despite dozens of watches existing in the simulated etcd. Of course, this doesn't say much about Honker, but it's nonetheless worth pointing out that sometimes the choice of database forces one towards a certain design.
[1] https://github.com/k3s-io/kine/blob/648a2daa/pkg/logstructur...
I had a manual fs polling thing a while back. It was ugly (low time budget, didn't wanna mess with the native watchers), just scanned the whole thing once per second. It averaged out to like 0.3% CPU.
Not elegant, but acceptable for my purposes! (Small-ish directory, and "ping me within a second or two" was realtime enough for this use case.)
Either way this does seem like a very large overhead due to the fact that there's just no other way to do it without a deeper kernel integration which might be outside the scope of what sqlite is trying to do.
For the low, low cost of $1 per minute, you can also lease a supercar.
I don't understand why you need busy polling if you're in-process anyway (what you usually have with Sqlite). Just make the event processing thread wait on a condition and wake it up after a transaction commits. In my Sqlite-based pet project, I have a Transaction interface that keeps track of whether an event was actually published inside a transaction, and if it was, the event processing thread is immediately notified inside Commit() to wake up and issue SELECTs. When no events are published, the Sqlite database is not touched and CPU has zero usage. Additionally, on application startup, we need to SELECT in case some events were written to the queue but did not have the chance to be processed because the application restarted or crashed.
Are they joking? SQLite is usually used for single-process (mutliple threads) applications. The proper way to communicate between threads/processes is a ring buffer, where you allocate structs (allocation typically is incrementing a pointer), and futex/eventfd for notifications (+ some spinlocking to avoid going to kernel when the tasks arrive quickly). Why do you need redis for that? If you need persistent tasks, then you can store them in the table, and still use futex for notifications. This polling is inefficient and they should not make it a library which will cause other lazy developers add it to their app.
> honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal
That's 3 ms per second = 0.3% CPU time wasted for every waiting thread.
Like Electron, this feels like written by a web developer and not a real programmer.
I suspect that's actually "per process, per database (usually 1)", and not based on number of threads or tables. `data_version` semantics mean there's no need for more than one connection polling it, and it's being used as a relatively lightweight "DB has changed, check queues" check (that's pretty much its whole purpose).
Also I believe this is mostly intended for multi-process use, e.g. out-of-process workers, so an in-process dirty tracker (e.g. just check after insert/update/delete) isn't sufficient.
So I do think it's somewhat crazy, but it is at least very simple. fsnotify-like monitoring seems like a fairly obvious improvement tho, not sure why that isn't part of it. Maybe it's slower? I haven't tried to do anything actually-performant-or-reliable with fs notifications, dunno what dragons lie in wait.
Key difference vs SQL polling is that we’re touching metadata instead of data pages. I have work in process to make this work without any polling (innotify, kqueue, mmap’d shm file check) after the original stat(2) direction proved unreliable if lightweight.
Would love your feedback and or contributions in the repo - still figuring out the end shape.
> How it works: honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal.
https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack
To make it look even more absurd . SQLite is not concurrent and you’ll have tons of problems using it practically .
I’d like to see messages per second.