openzim / openzim/python-scraperlib
Is beartype cost acceptable?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 31
- Forks
- 27
- Avg merge
- 3d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
Context
While investigating a memory leak (fixed in #324 — a closure in RxRewriter.rewrite() was being re-decorated by beartype's claw hook on every call, permanently pinning it via beartype's own is_object_blacklisted cache), the fix removed the leak but also raised the question of how much runtime cost beartype_this_package() (used project-wide in zimscraperlib/__init__.py) actually adds. This issue is to share those numbers and discuss whether the tradeoff is the one we want.
Methodology
Ran warc2zim to completion, twice, on the same input, same machine, back to back:
warc2zim --publisher=openZIM --content-header-bytes-length=2048 \
--zim-file=www.physicsclassroom.com_56e21a6e.zim --name=www.physicsclassroom.com_56e21a6e \
--scraper-suffix "zimit 3.1.2" --output output \
--url https://www.physicsclassroom.com/ \
<local WARC, 731MB compressed, ~14.5K ZIM entries> --overwrite
wrapped in /usr/bin/time -v for wall-clock, CPU, and peak RSS.
- Run A:
zimscraperlibas-is (beartype_this_package()active). - Run B: same install, with the single line
beartype_this_package()inzimscraperlib/__init__.pycommented out (everything else identical), bytecode cache cleared between runs.
Both runs post-date the #324 leak fix, so memory is no longer confounded by that bug.
Results
| With beartype (Run A) | Without beartype (Run B) | Delta | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wall clock time | 53:50 (3230s) | 44:08 (2648s) | −18.0% |
| User CPU time | 3835s | 3251s | −15.2% |
| Max RSS | 924,060 KB | 885,356 KB | −4.2% (noise-level) |
Both runs completed successfully with an identical entry count. Memory is essentially the same between the two (the small gap is within run-to-run noise).
Takeaway
Runtime type-checking via beartype_this_package() costs roughly 15-18% additional wall-clock/CPU time on this workload, with no meaningful memory cost of its own now that #324 is fixed.
Discussion
Is this tradeoff (broad runtime type-safety across zimscraperlib, for ~15-18% slower conversions) the one we want, or should beartype's coverage be scoped down — e.g. excluding hot paths like zimscraperlib.rewriting from beartype_this_package(), or using a cheaper BeartypeStrategy for those modules — while keeping full checking elsewhere, or allowing to fully disable beartype "on-demand" (e.g. enable it only for unit and e2e tests of scraperlib and scrapers)?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with zimscraperlib/init.py and the beartype_this_package() call, then review the zimscraperlib.rewriting hot path and the documented warc2zim benchmark command. Reproduce the paired runs if needed and compare wall time, CPU time, and peak RSS. Done means agreeing on and documenting whether coverage should be scoped, configured with a cheaper strategy, or disabled for selected runs.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- performance
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100