openzim / openzim/python-scraperlib
Is beartype cost acceptable?
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Python
- Estrellas
- 31
- Forks
- 27
- Merge medio
- 3 d 7 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 2
Descripción
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)?
Guía de contribución
No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
Comienza con zimscraperlib/init.py y la llamada a beartype_this_package(), luego revisa la ruta crítica zimscraperlib.rewriting y el comando de benchmark de warc2zim documentado. Reproduce las ejecuciones emparejadas si es necesario y compara el tiempo de pared, el tiempo de CPU y el RSS máximo. Se considera terminado cuando se haya acordado y documentado si la cobertura debe limitarse, configurarse con una estrategia más económica o deshabilitarse para ejecuciones seleccionadas.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- python
- Área
- performance
- Tipo de issue
- Refactorización
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Estado de actividad
- Tranquilo
- Claridad
- Necesita aclaración
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 35/100