openzim / openzim/python-scraperlib
Is beartype cost acceptable?
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 31
- Fork
- 27
- Merge medio
- 3g 7h
- PR unite (30g)
- 2
Descrizione
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)?
Guida per i contributori
Nessuna guida per i contributori indicizzata per questo repository
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia con zimscraperlib/init.py e la chiamata a beartype_this_package(), quindi esamina l’hot path zimscraperlib.rewriting e il comando di benchmark warc2zim documentato. Riproduci le esecuzioni abbinate se necessario e confronta il tempo reale, il tempo CPU e l’RSS di picco. Il lavoro è completato quando si è concordato e documentato se la coverage debba essere limitata, configurata con una strategia meno costosa o disabilitata per alcune esecuzioni.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- python
- Ambito
- performance
- Tipo di issue
- Refactoring
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Stato di attività
- Tranquilla
- Chiarezza
- Da chiarire
- Idoneità per principianti
- 35/100