- Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [feature] Add timing information to statistics page
by Amazon 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22623 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: statistics.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Dries Updated by: Amazon Status: patch It's great to have this level of logging granularity. I am concerned that all the logging would add over head when having multiple crawlers crawling the site during testing. Would it be possible to support batching the log entries and submitting them to the database as batch query at set increments instead of for every page. For example I routinely run several wget crawls for different roles when testing an upgrade. If I ran 5 crawlers and each of 10, 000+ pages were being crawled then I am concerned the performance would be impacted. I understand this isn't the intent of this patch but non intrusive logging is important in generating accurate performance measurements. Thank-you for your consideration. Kieran Amazon Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 20:05 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.patch (8.56 KB) I extended the current timer_start() function in bootstrap.inc and added two new function, timer_read() and timer_stop(). I've used these to profile drupal.org. (A small change will be needed to devel.module.) I've also extended the accesslog-table to keep track of page generation times. The information is shown on the "top pages" page (admin/logs/pages). It shows each page's average page generation time, and the total page generation time. This lets one identify (i) slow pages and (ii) resource heavy pages. This is the most essential and most useful information when tuning your Drupal site. Please review, or I'll commit it as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 20:13 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.pdf (22 KB) Screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 21:04 : Dries Setting to patch. Take a look at the patch + screenshot please. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 21:19 : moshe weitzman looks ok ... note that there are some unrelated (i think) variable_set() changes in the patch.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Add timing information to statistics page
by moshe weitzman 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22623 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: statistics.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Dries Updated by: moshe weitzman Status: patch looks ok ... note that there are some unrelated (i think) variable_set() changes in the patch. moshe weitzman Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 15:05 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.patch (8.56 KB) I extended the current timer_start() function in bootstrap.inc and added two new function, timer_read() and timer_stop(). I've used these to profile drupal.org. (A small change will be needed to devel.module.) I've also extended the accesslog-table to keep track of page generation times. The information is shown on the "top pages" page (admin/logs/pages). It shows each page's average page generation time, and the total page generation time. This lets one identify (i) slow pages and (ii) resource heavy pages. This is the most essential and most useful information when tuning your Drupal site. Please review, or I'll commit it as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 15:13 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.pdf (22 KB) Screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 16:04 : Dries Setting to patch. Take a look at the patch + screenshot please.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Adder timing information to statistics page
by Dries 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22623 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: statistics.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Dries Updated by: Dries -Status: active +Status: patch Setting to patch. Take a look at the patch + screenshot please. Dries Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 22:05 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.patch (8.56 KB) I extended the current timer_start() function in bootstrap.inc and added two new function, timer_read() and timer_stop(). I've used these to profile drupal.org. (A small change will be needed to devel.module.) I've also extended the accesslog-table to keep track of page generation times. The information is shown on the "top pages" page (admin/logs/pages). It shows each page's average page generation time, and the total page generation time. This lets one identify (i) slow pages and (ii) resource heavy pages. This is the most essential and most useful information when tuning your Drupal site. Please review, or I'll commit it as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 22:13 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/timer.pdf (22 KB) Screenshot.

1 0

Re: [drupal-devel] Cleaner Directory structure
by K B 11 May '05

11 May '05

> What I am suggesting is a small change like the one at the end of this > email. It will give the opportunity to maintain all or modst of the > scenarios described so far, and will make drupal more packageable by the > distributions, as . The downside is that it will require a central > configuration file ( put in /etc/drupal ;) > > This suggestion should not have any performance implications, as far as > I am aware, apart from the loading of the configuration file, let's be > serious. > > I wouldn't argue with any default directory scheme suggested, I like the > current one myself, as long as it is trivial (read standard and > configurable) for an admin to set up the directory structure they like, > and drupal is packageable without modifications bar config by debian. > > Be flexible if it doesn't hurt you. > > Cheers, Vlado I think your idea has a lot of merit, and provides excellent flexibility. What I am not clear on is, for shared hosting, where would this file go? Also, how does it map into the notion "a directory that does not need to be changed" which I am lobbying for? My goal is to reduce clutter in the parent directory, and provide a drop in upgrade feature for core. I think we can marry the two ideas (mine, and yours) like this: public_html/.htaccess.example public_html/index.php public_html/drupal/ public_html/drupal/drupal.php <==== THIS IS THE NEW FILE public_html/drupal/includes/ public_html/drupal/modules/ public_html/drupal/themes/ public_html/drupal/misc/ public_html/drupal/doc (contains all the .TXT files) public_html/local/ public_html/local/sites public_html/local/sites/default/ public_html/local/sites/default/settings.php.example public_html/local/modules (contrib modules that are shared for all sites - empty) public_html/local/themes (contrib themes that are shared for all sites - empty) In the drupal.php file, we have this: <?php // Directory where drupal core is located $drupal_core = 'drupal'; // Directory where site configurations, and contributed modules and themes are located $drupal_sites = 'local'; ?> conf_init() will be like this: $drupal_conf='drupal/drupal.php'; foreach (array("$sites/$config/$dir/$file", "$sites/$config/$dir/$name/$file", "$core/$dir/$file", "$core/$dir/$name/$file") as $file) { if (file_exists($file)) { $files[$type][$name] = $file; break; } } This achieves everything I wanted for shared hosting, where drop in upgrade is easy, and there is no clutter. Yet, with your added flexibility, distros can change $drupal_conf to anything they like, and/or the contents of the drupal.php file as well.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Make $node->type a class in the main div of the default node.tpl.php
by factoryjoe 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22487 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: theme system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: willmoy Reported by: willmoy Updated by: factoryjoe Status: patch This will be in the upcoming versions of SpreadSpread (was SpreadFirefox), Lincoln's Revenge and Democratica. factoryjoe Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 01:36 : willmoy Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetype_theming.patch (716 bytes) This patch would change the main div of, for example, a sticky book node from: <div class="node sticky"> to: <div class="node node-book sticky"> This is to aid theming; motivated by trying to theme forums differently from pages etc. It uses the same convention as node type-specific blocks (e.g. class="block block-book") and it is should be completely backward compatible so long as people do not have very odd tastes in class names. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 11:30 : adrian You could also just copy node.tpl.php to your theme dir and modify it there to user $node->type, and if you only want to do something for forum nodes, you could copy the node.tpl.php to node-forum.tpl.php PHPTemplate has been moved to core for 4.7, so I will only accept this patch for the 4.6 branch if it is accepted into core. Otherwise your templates will just magically stop working. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 14:42 : stefan nagtegaal I do think this is nicer than the way of having multiple node.$type.tpl.php files as we have now... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 14:49 : willmoy Both are useful. This exposes options to CSS that wouldn't otherwise be there, but there are of course PHP things that you can only do in node-whatever.tpl.php. This patch augments current functionality, it doesn't replace it or make it redundant.

1 0

[drupal-devel] Drupal.org visual status
by Kent Livingston 11 May '05

11 May '05

What I feel a *little* less dumb about (but am going to duck anyway) is something I've brought up before and that's the, to me, unsightly overlapping elements on drupal.org home page. As I opened up the page today in IE, or Firefox The 'bright green' download 'block' overlaps and sits on top of the 'skin toned' main introductory block at the top of the page. And the dark blue tabs bunch "down" and under at the right side of the top row covering/layering over the search input field. Yes, if you always use fully expanded web pages it looks fine, but there are legions of people who like to see multiple windows at one time and don't keep all their application windows maximized to full screen. For us the Drupal site looks pretty odd. No, I don't have an answer. Steve and I have gone around a bit on this before but I just don't think it represents the best of what Drupal can do visually. And since my foot is so far into my mouth already I might as well say that the color combinations make me a tiny bit sea-sick. (I'm not quite suicidal enough to say anything about the logo) There have been major improvements for which I applaud Steve and others, but I would like to encourage the 'presentation' contributors to consider what might improve the 'flagship' and take it to the next level. I realize this is somewhat secondary to the back-end, but it is important as it is the visible 'face' of Drupal. I would say the visual presentation on the Drupal site is maybe 12-24 months behind the conservative edge of web site design look and feel. As I get ready to duck the tomatoes, and the "well do something about it, complainer" messages ;-), I think honest feedback that is outside the realm of having the skills to contribute can be seen as a contribution in of itself. Ok, let them fly... -Kent

3 2

[drupal-devel] [task] Performance issues with path aliases
by Dries 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22035 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: mikeryan Updated by: Dries Status: patch Looks like in all cases, performance actually improves. I've run a couple tests myself using the drupal.org database and measured performance improvements up to 15%. Of course, this was done on a machine where the MySQL database wasn't hammered on by 50+ concurrent requests. It would be appreciated if you could extend your patch with a couple lines of documentation to document the behavior (so people understand why we are doing it this way), the code and the API. Maybe add an entry to CHANGELOG.txt? Do we need an update for updates.inc? As for future work, I think we're better off looking at l(). As said, one call to l() takes about 0.9 ms and we easily do 100+ such calls per page. Caching at the level of l() is likely to buy us more but I don't know whether it is feasible. Maybe we can think of other optimizations too. If anything, it might be a good idea to add a TODO/NOTE to the PHPdoc of l(). Or, if you feel like messing with l() first, by all means! Count me in -- it's fun. :-) Dries Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 03:10 : mikeryan See Investigate use of conf_url_rewrite [1] for context... The current core support for translating incoming path aliases to the internal Drupal path (drupal_get_path_alias) and substituting aliases when generating links to internal paths (drupal_get_normal_path) does not scale well with many aliases. The ease with which pathauto enables site administrators to generate large numbers of aliases exposes this issue, but it is inherent in the core implementation, because drupal_get_path_map reads in the entire url_alias table at bootstrap time. I'd like to discuss ideas on how to improve the performance... Most obviously, why not simply query the url_alias table as needed instead of loading the whole table? In the incoming case, only a single simple SELECT is necessary, which will always be more efficient than reading the table. In the outgoing case, there might be some slight performance advantage to caching the table with a small number of aliases, but the disadvantage can become huge as the alias table grows. One note - I've noticed that the src column in url_alias is not indexed, I think adding an index should significantly help the performance in the outgoing case if we were to do individual SELECTs. Any other thoughts? [1] http://drupal.org/node/21938 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:02 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/bootstrap.inc_2.patch (1.06 KB) What the hell, I went ahead and gave it a shot... On my home system, where I'm testing out 4.6.0, page loads have been taking several seconds, which I attributed to the fact that it's an old computer and I'm multi-tasking like crazy. I implemented my own suggestion, and now pages load in about one second, it makes an incredible difference (FWIW, my url_alias table has over 4000 rows). Patches attached, go give it a try... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:02 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_11.patch (723 bytes) One attachment per note, that's tedious... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:03 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/path.module_0.patch (1.34 KB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:03 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.mysql_4.patch (553 bytes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:04 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.pgsql_2.patch (502 bytes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2005 - 04:07 : mikeryan Note: I just noticed that the database.*sql patches showed an extra diff (not mine) to the location field in locales_source. I did my diffs against a freshly-updated DRUPAL-4-6, and had made the edits against a release from a few days ago... Those locales_source changes should probably be removed from my patches before applying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 01:13 : mikeryan I upgraded Fenway Views [2] to Drupal 4.6.0 today, incorporating these patches. Performance is very noticeably improved. [2] http://fenway-views.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 15:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/pathalias.patch (4.98 KB) I've merged the patch into one. Much more convenient. I also changed it to cvs as only there new features will be added. Upgrade path needs to be added. Mike, can you run some more tests? We are especially interested in "hard" data ie numbers with possibly error bars. it would be interesting to know how this patch affects sites that have only a few path aliases vs those with a lot of them. Also, how pages with a lot of node links (tracker) are affected. It might be worthwhile to add static caching in drupal_get_normal_path if it gets calle dmore than once for a link on one page view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 19:21 : mikeryan Thanks for merging the patches, I wasn't aware you could patch multiple files at once. If this is accepted, of course, adding the index on src should be incorporated into updates.inc. In terms of hard data, I've never profiled PHP code - what tool(s) do you use? I couldn't find anything referenced in the PHP manual... re: pages with lots of links - on Fenway Views the big test is the calendar [3], and the performance improvement seems even more dramatic here. I don't know why - the url_alias table is read once per page, so I would expect as you do that preloading the table would tend to look better when you have a hundred internal links on the page. Maybe we're both underestimating exactly how fast a simple MySQL query on an indexed key can be (I'm using MySQL 4.0.20, BTW)... [3] http://fenway-views.com/calendar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 19:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org As we speak, Mathias is doing some tests. The tool of choice is usually apache bench. If you have a lot of url aliases, the generated array will be huge. Part of the improvement could be due to the fact that you need less memory now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 19:28 : mikeryan Great, thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 19:34 : Dries On drupal.org it takes 800 ms or more to generate a page. Of these 800 ms, only 4 ms is spent building the path alias map (incl. the SQL query time which takes about 1 ms). That is, building the map takes 0.5% of the total time which is neglible. In our url_alias table are only 321 aliases though. How many aliases do you have? What is more, when we build drupal.org's main page, we query this map 215 times. I believe your patch would introduce 215 SQL queries ... I'm afraid that if we'd apply your patch, we'd pay a serious performance penalty (unless we have many more aliases). Can you provide some numbers/measurements? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 19:37 : Dries Note: my measurements did not take into account the time spent searching the map. On the main page, we search this array 215 times. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 20:08 : puregin I believe that it's felt that adding path aliases would improve the Drupal documentation. This may well add 400+ paths to the URL aliases table on Drupal.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 20:27 : Dries I spent some more time investigating this. The relevant code in bootstrap.inc is this: function drupal_get_path_alias($path) { if (($map = drupal_get_path_map()) && ($newpath = array_search($path, $map))) { return $newpath; } ... Turns out that the time to build the map is neglible (< 5ms, see previous comments), however the total time spent on 'path aliasing' it about 70ms per page! 50ms of these 70ms are spent on $map = drupal_get_path_map(). The remaining 20ms is spent on $newpath = array_search($path, $map). The first call to drupal_get_path_map() takes 3 to 5 ms, each subsequent call takes about 0.3 ms. Searching the array costs 0.1 ms. However, if you have to do this 130+ times, this adds up to a whopping 70 ms. Remind that we have 321 aliases in our map. As drupal_get_path_alias() is typically called from code>url(), which in turn is typically called from l() I set out to investigate the time spent in l(). Looks like l() easily gets called 120 times/page, and that each call to l() costs about 0.9 ms. That is about 2 or 3 times the cost of the /average SQL query/. The total time spent in l() is 115 ms! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 00:25 : adrian This is a complete aside, and probably off-topic, but I would like to mention that I was actually looking at rewriting url() to be able to handle 'external urls' , because I want to do aliases using the site subdomain, like for instance : http://category.sitename.com/article/title_goes_here -> node/23 Rewriting url to allow this would also allow us to use l() for external links of any kind, getting rid of a bunch of inline html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 00:46 : chx adrian, I have written a patch for l to support external links but Ber said that a module like weblink shall handle those. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 01:03 : mikeryan I've got over 4000 aliases on Fenway Views - another pathauto user reported over 6000. I don't have a profiling tool to give timing data, but adding a quick counter shows that for the Fenway Views calendar [4], drupal_get_path_alias() is called 404 times and drupal_get_normal_path is called 227 times. And trust me, this page loads MUCH faster with my patch than it does with the path map. I think those SQL queries are a lot cheaper than one might expect... [4] http://fenway-views.com/calendar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 06:24 : mathias Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/pathalias-with-caching.patch (5.62 KB) Some benchmarks, with MySQL and Drupal caching disabled. 2 SETS OF TESTS ======================================= 1) 500 nodes and aliases 2) 20,000 nodes and aliases 3 TYPES OF TESTS PER SET ======================================= 1) Baseline unmodified Drupal 2) The following change inside drupal_get_path_map(): - if (is_null($map)) { + if ($map === NULL) { $map = array(); // Make $map non-null in case no aliases are defined. 3) Pull aliases only when needed rather than loading the entire alias table. SET 1 - 500 Nodes and 500 Aliases using: ab -c 10 -n 100 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 13.00 seconds Requests per second: 3.85 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 56.35 [Kbytes/sec] received is_null() VS NULL Time taken for tests: 12.463 seconds Requests per second: 4.01 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 57.63 [Kbytes/sec] received Per Instance Alias Lookup (32 additional queries) Time taken for tests: 11.502 seconds Requests per second: 4.35 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 63.30 [Kbytes/sec] received SET 2 - 20,000 Nodes and 20,000 Aliases using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 204.583 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received is_null() VS NULL Time taken for tests: 127.629 seconds Requests per second: 0.39 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 5.35 [Kbytes/sec] received Per Instance Alias Lookup (32 additional queries) Time taken for tests: 28.788 seconds Requests per second: 1.74 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 23.59 [Kbytes/sec] received ANALYSIS ======================================= Converting 'is_null()' to '=== NULL' is a no brainer and results in a nice performance gain. And while per instance alias lookups also give a huge boost for site with thousands of aliases, they're benefits are entirely dependent on the number of system URLs and menu items visible per request. As noted above I tested the standard homepage which added 32 additional queries. A request for something like the admin interface would presumably show less benefits. I would've tested this, but I didn't know how to invoke an authenticated page request with 'ab'. A positive of this approach is we no longer would be storing all the aliases in memory. What other concerns do we have with this last approach? Am I properly testing the strain on the database? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 07:08 : Dries Can you try making the following changes? 1. To common.inc: function drupal_rebuild_path_map() { - drupal_get_path_map('rebuild'); + drupal_get_path_map(TRUE); } 2. To bootstrap.inc: -function drupal_get_path_map($action = '') { +function drupal_get_path_map($rebuild = FALSE) { static $map = NULL; - if ($action == 'rebuild') { + if ($rebuild) { $map = NULL; } That is, replace the string comparison with a boolean comparison. Not sure it is going to make a significant difference but it might be another micro-improvement. I'll test your patch shortly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 14:21 : mathias Dries. Those changes had no real performance gain. 20,000 Nodes and 20,000 Aliases using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 204.583 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received String VS Boolean Time taken for tests: 204.190 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 15:01 : Dries Before this patch can be committed, we need to do more testing. I'd like to know how this behaves on sites with few or no path aliases, and on sites like drupal.org, with a modest amount of path aliases. The reason I'm asking is because MySQL is often the bottleneck and not PHP/Apache. This is the case on drupal.org, for example. The proposed patch moves some of the processing costs from PHP to MySQL. On drupal.org, the amount of SQL queries/page would double. Needless to say, this is somewhat scary. ;) More numbers would be appreciated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 04:56 : mikeryan I'm curious, why test with MySQL caching disabled? Since much of the issue is the expense of making (potentially many) more queries, this wouldn't seem to reflect the performance gain in practice. The caching (compared to making the query each time) seems like overkill to me - with MySQL caching enabled, I would think this complicates the code for little (if any) performance gain. Did you do any profiling using my original (cacheless) patch? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 07:23 : mathias In an ideal world everyone would be running a query cache but I wanted to see how this would hold up under the worst-case scenario. I tested the original patch which didn't use static variables and the amount of queries doubled. For example, to load the front page, Drupal queried the url_alias table 22 times looking for an alias for 'node'. There's no need to send duplicate queries to the DB since it seems that's where most bottlenecks seem to lie. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 00:41 : mikeryan re: worst-case scenario - I understand that. re: # queries - I would not want to assume adding to the number of queries is necessarily a significant performance hit (with database caching on, of course). I understand the suspicion - I've been around long enough to remember when you did everything you could to avoid making one single SQL query more than you absolutely had to. But modern databases (including MySQL) are very well optimized for this kind of application (lots and lots of small queries). And, I have seen real-life cases where adding caching of data that's already being cached somewhere upstream actually degrades performance. As long as we're examining this particular area of performance under a microscope, let's make sure we squeeze every millisecond of savings we can out of it - I'd just like to see the numbers for a cached database/no Drupal caching combination for comparison. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 11, 2005 - 07:12 : mathias Dries asked me to do some tests using the drupal.org database. Once again it appears that plucking aliases out of the database as needed performed better than grabbing the entire alias table at the beginning of the request lifecycle, even if the alias table is small. Here's the numbers. using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] Drupal.org Baseline ============= Time taken for tests: 18.081 seconds Requests per second: 2.77 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 52.69 [Kbytes/sec] received 1 page request was 83 queries in 60ms for a cycle execution time of 255ms Drupal.org Per Instance Query ================== Time taken for tests: 16.536 seconds Requests per second: 3.02 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 56.63 [Kbytes/sec] received 1 page request was 125 queries in 65ms for a cycle execution time of 230ms Notice that the database does work a little harder to retrieve the queries one by one. And it also doesn't make sense to run 40 extra queries on a site with only 50 aliases. I think at this point we have a couple of options to explore: 1. Continue to try and squeeze out any other optimizations we can in the original path aliasing code. Maybe look at output buffering or a mechnism that'll allow us to start working the database resultset as soon data is fed into the pipe rather than waiting for the request to finish. 2. Try to identify the point (e.g., the number aliases) at which it becomes more effecient to fetch aliases and change patterns on the fly. As with most optimizations, the end result will probably be a combination of both.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Performance issues with path aliases
by mathias 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22035 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: mikeryan Updated by: mathias Status: patch Dries asked me to do some tests using the drupal.org database. Once again it appears that plucking aliases out of the database as needed performed better than grabbing the entire alias table at the beginning of the request lifecycle, even if the alias table is small. Here's the numbers. using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] Drupal.org Baseline ============= Time taken for tests: 18.081 seconds Requests per second: 2.77 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 52.69 [Kbytes/sec] received 1 page request was 83 queries in 60ms for a cycle execution time of 255ms Drupal.org Per Instance Query ================== Time taken for tests: 16.536 seconds Requests per second: 3.02 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 56.63 [Kbytes/sec] received 1 page request was 125 queries in 65ms for a cycle execution time of 230ms Notice that the database does work a little harder to retrieve the queries one by one. And it also doesn't make sense to run 40 extra queries on a site with only 50 aliases. I think at this point we have a couple of options to explore: 1. Continue to try and squeeze out any other optimizations we can in the original path aliasing code. Maybe look at output buffering or a mechnism that'll allow us to start working the database resultset as soon data is fed into the pipe rather than waiting for the request to finish. 2. Try to identify the point (e.g., the number aliases) at which it becomes more effecient to fetch aliases and change patterns on the fly. As with most optimizations, the end result will probably be a combination of both. mathias Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 19:10 : mikeryan See Investigate use of conf_url_rewrite [1] for context... The current core support for translating incoming path aliases to the internal Drupal path (drupal_get_path_alias) and substituting aliases when generating links to internal paths (drupal_get_normal_path) does not scale well with many aliases. The ease with which pathauto enables site administrators to generate large numbers of aliases exposes this issue, but it is inherent in the core implementation, because drupal_get_path_map reads in the entire url_alias table at bootstrap time. I'd like to discuss ideas on how to improve the performance... Most obviously, why not simply query the url_alias table as needed instead of loading the whole table? In the incoming case, only a single simple SELECT is necessary, which will always be more efficient than reading the table. In the outgoing case, there might be some slight performance advantage to caching the table with a small number of aliases, but the disadvantage can become huge as the alias table grows. One note - I've noticed that the src column in url_alias is not indexed, I think adding an index should significantly help the performance in the outgoing case if we were to do individual SELECTs. Any other thoughts? [1] http://drupal.org/node/21938 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:02 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/bootstrap.inc_2.patch (1.06 KB) What the hell, I went ahead and gave it a shot... On my home system, where I'm testing out 4.6.0, page loads have been taking several seconds, which I attributed to the fact that it's an old computer and I'm multi-tasking like crazy. I implemented my own suggestion, and now pages load in about one second, it makes an incredible difference (FWIW, my url_alias table has over 4000 rows). Patches attached, go give it a try... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:02 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_11.patch (723 bytes) One attachment per note, that's tedious... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:03 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/path.module_0.patch (1.34 KB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:03 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.mysql_4.patch (553 bytes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:04 : mikeryan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.pgsql_2.patch (502 bytes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 4, 2005 - 20:07 : mikeryan Note: I just noticed that the database.*sql patches showed an extra diff (not mine) to the location field in locales_source. I did my diffs against a freshly-updated DRUPAL-4-6, and had made the edits against a release from a few days ago... Those locales_source changes should probably be removed from my patches before applying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 7, 2005 - 17:13 : mikeryan I upgraded Fenway Views [2] to Drupal 4.6.0 today, incorporating these patches. Performance is very noticeably improved. [2] http://fenway-views.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 07:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/pathalias.patch (4.98 KB) I've merged the patch into one. Much more convenient. I also changed it to cvs as only there new features will be added. Upgrade path needs to be added. Mike, can you run some more tests? We are especially interested in "hard" data ie numbers with possibly error bars. it would be interesting to know how this patch affects sites that have only a few path aliases vs those with a lot of them. Also, how pages with a lot of node links (tracker) are affected. It might be worthwhile to add static caching in drupal_get_normal_path if it gets calle dmore than once for a link on one page view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 11:21 : mikeryan Thanks for merging the patches, I wasn't aware you could patch multiple files at once. If this is accepted, of course, adding the index on src should be incorporated into updates.inc. In terms of hard data, I've never profiled PHP code - what tool(s) do you use? I couldn't find anything referenced in the PHP manual... re: pages with lots of links - on Fenway Views the big test is the calendar [3], and the performance improvement seems even more dramatic here. I don't know why - the url_alias table is read once per page, so I would expect as you do that preloading the table would tend to look better when you have a hundred internal links on the page. Maybe we're both underestimating exactly how fast a simple MySQL query on an indexed key can be (I'm using MySQL 4.0.20, BTW)... [3] http://fenway-views.com/calendar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 11:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org As we speak, Mathias is doing some tests. The tool of choice is usually apache bench. If you have a lot of url aliases, the generated array will be huge. Part of the improvement could be due to the fact that you need less memory now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 11:28 : mikeryan Great, thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 11:34 : Dries On drupal.org it takes 800 ms or more to generate a page. Of these 800 ms, only 4 ms is spent building the path alias map (incl. the SQL query time which takes about 1 ms). That is, building the map takes 0.5% of the total time which is neglible. In our url_alias table are only 321 aliases though. How many aliases do you have? What is more, when we build drupal.org's main page, we query this map 215 times. I believe your patch would introduce 215 SQL queries ... I'm afraid that if we'd apply your patch, we'd pay a serious performance penalty (unless we have many more aliases). Can you provide some numbers/measurements? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 11:37 : Dries Note: my measurements did not take into account the time spent searching the map. On the main page, we search this array 215 times. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 12:08 : puregin I believe that it's felt that adding path aliases would improve the Drupal documentation. This may well add 400+ paths to the URL aliases table on Drupal.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 12:27 : Dries I spent some more time investigating this. The relevant code in bootstrap.inc is this: function drupal_get_path_alias($path) { if (($map = drupal_get_path_map()) && ($newpath = array_search($path, $map))) { return $newpath; } ... Turns out that the time to build the map is neglible (< 5ms, see previous comments), however the total time spent on 'path aliasing' it about 70ms per page! 50ms of these 70ms are spent on $map = drupal_get_path_map(). The remaining 20ms is spent on $newpath = array_search($path, $map). The first call to drupal_get_path_map() takes 3 to 5 ms, each subsequent call takes about 0.3 ms. Searching the array costs 0.1 ms. However, if you have to do this 130+ times, this adds up to a whopping 70 ms. Remind that we have 321 aliases in our map. As drupal_get_path_alias() is typically called from code>url(), which in turn is typically called from l() I set out to investigate the time spent in l(). Looks like l() easily gets called 120 times/page, and that each call to l() costs about 0.9 ms. That is about 2 or 3 times the cost of the /average SQL query/. The total time spent in l() is 115 ms! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 16:25 : adrian This is a complete aside, and probably off-topic, but I would like to mention that I was actually looking at rewriting url() to be able to handle 'external urls' , because I want to do aliases using the site subdomain, like for instance : http://category.sitename.com/article/title_goes_here -> node/23 Rewriting url to allow this would also allow us to use l() for external links of any kind, getting rid of a bunch of inline html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 16:46 : chx adrian, I have written a patch for l to support external links but Ber said that a module like weblink shall handle those. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 17:03 : mikeryan I've got over 4000 aliases on Fenway Views - another pathauto user reported over 6000. I don't have a profiling tool to give timing data, but adding a quick counter shows that for the Fenway Views calendar [4], drupal_get_path_alias() is called 404 times and drupal_get_normal_path is called 227 times. And trust me, this page loads MUCH faster with my patch than it does with the path map. I think those SQL queries are a lot cheaper than one might expect... [4] http://fenway-views.com/calendar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 22:24 : mathias Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/pathalias-with-caching.patch (5.62 KB) Some benchmarks, with MySQL and Drupal caching disabled. 2 SETS OF TESTS ======================================= 1) 500 nodes and aliases 2) 20,000 nodes and aliases 3 TYPES OF TESTS PER SET ======================================= 1) Baseline unmodified Drupal 2) The following change inside drupal_get_path_map(): - if (is_null($map)) { + if ($map === NULL) { $map = array(); // Make $map non-null in case no aliases are defined. 3) Pull aliases only when needed rather than loading the entire alias table. SET 1 - 500 Nodes and 500 Aliases using: ab -c 10 -n 100 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 13.00 seconds Requests per second: 3.85 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 56.35 [Kbytes/sec] received is_null() VS NULL Time taken for tests: 12.463 seconds Requests per second: 4.01 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 57.63 [Kbytes/sec] received Per Instance Alias Lookup (32 additional queries) Time taken for tests: 11.502 seconds Requests per second: 4.35 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 63.30 [Kbytes/sec] received SET 2 - 20,000 Nodes and 20,000 Aliases using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 204.583 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received is_null() VS NULL Time taken for tests: 127.629 seconds Requests per second: 0.39 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 5.35 [Kbytes/sec] received Per Instance Alias Lookup (32 additional queries) Time taken for tests: 28.788 seconds Requests per second: 1.74 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 23.59 [Kbytes/sec] received ANALYSIS ======================================= Converting 'is_null()' to '=== NULL' is a no brainer and results in a nice performance gain. And while per instance alias lookups also give a huge boost for site with thousands of aliases, they're benefits are entirely dependent on the number of system URLs and menu items visible per request. As noted above I tested the standard homepage which added 32 additional queries. A request for something like the admin interface would presumably show less benefits. I would've tested this, but I didn't know how to invoke an authenticated page request with 'ab'. A positive of this approach is we no longer would be storing all the aliases in memory. What other concerns do we have with this last approach? Am I properly testing the strain on the database? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 8, 2005 - 23:08 : Dries Can you try making the following changes? 1. To common.inc: function drupal_rebuild_path_map() { - drupal_get_path_map('rebuild'); + drupal_get_path_map(TRUE); } 2. To bootstrap.inc: -function drupal_get_path_map($action = '') { +function drupal_get_path_map($rebuild = FALSE) { static $map = NULL; - if ($action == 'rebuild') { + if ($rebuild) { $map = NULL; } That is, replace the string comparison with a boolean comparison. Not sure it is going to make a significant difference but it might be another micro-improvement. I'll test your patch shortly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 06:21 : mathias Dries. Those changes had no real performance gain. 20,000 Nodes and 20,000 Aliases using: ab -c 5 -n 50 [homepage] ======================================= Baseline Time taken for tests: 204.583 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received String VS Boolean Time taken for tests: 204.190 seconds Requests per second: 0.24 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 3.34 [Kbytes/sec] received ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 07:01 : Dries Before this patch can be committed, we need to do more testing. I'd like to know how this behaves on sites with few or no path aliases, and on sites like drupal.org, with a modest amount of path aliases. The reason I'm asking is because MySQL is often the bottleneck and not PHP/Apache. This is the case on drupal.org, for example. The proposed patch moves some of the processing costs from PHP to MySQL. On drupal.org, the amount of SQL queries/page would double. Needless to say, this is somewhat scary. ;) More numbers would be appreciated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 20:56 : mikeryan I'm curious, why test with MySQL caching disabled? Since much of the issue is the expense of making (potentially many) more queries, this wouldn't seem to reflect the performance gain in practice. The caching (compared to making the query each time) seems like overkill to me - with MySQL caching enabled, I would think this complicates the code for little (if any) performance gain. Did you do any profiling using my original (cacheless) patch? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:23 : mathias In an ideal world everyone would be running a query cache but I wanted to see how this would hold up under the worst-case scenario. I tested the original patch which didn't use static variables and the amount of queries doubled. For example, to load the front page, Drupal queried the url_alias table 22 times looking for an alias for 'node'. There's no need to send duplicate queries to the DB since it seems that's where most bottlenecks seem to lie. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 16:41 : mikeryan re: worst-case scenario - I understand that. re: # queries - I would not want to assume adding to the number of queries is necessarily a significant performance hit (with database caching on, of course). I understand the suspicion - I've been around long enough to remember when you did everything you could to avoid making one single SQL query more than you absolutely had to. But modern databases (including MySQL) are very well optimized for this kind of application (lots and lots of small queries). And, I have seen real-life cases where adding caching of data that's already being cached somewhere upstream actually degrades performance. As long as we're examining this particular area of performance under a microscope, let's make sure we squeeze every millisecond of savings we can out of it - I'd just like to see the numbers for a cached database/no Drupal caching combination for comparison. Thanks.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7582 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_29.patch (54.83 KB) Ok, here I am again. What I did: 1) Ask Dries to let me have drupal.org database 2) get 400MB of SQL inserts... 3) take 23 minutes to import said data 4) Remove all image and project nodes (don't want to install their modules), 11765 nodes left 5) back up data 6) take tests on non-cached /node page (as anonymous user). ab results: -c 1 -n 25: Requests per second: 1.29 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 663 775 179.7 689 1264 7) Do the same for the tracker page: Requests per second: 0.83 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1182 1199 7.4 1199 1217 8) Apply my patch (rev. 28). 9) run db update and hold breath 10) update times out... 11) play back backup from 5) 12) wait 13) getting annoyed and removing cache, watchdog, and accesslog before playing in backup. 14) wait again. Understand why Dries doesn't try this patch often. Maybe a smaller DB would do for testing? 15) wait more. get really annoyed. 16) Set time limit to 18000 in update.php 17) try again 18) fails again before the second update is completed. 19) curse. 20) delete search stuff from db. Ooops, sooo much smaller... 21) import again, below 2 minutes... 22) rewrite to use extended insert. Found a bug. 23) still does not complete. Mysql logging to the rescue! 24) tid = 0? Not good. 25) Well, the update works fine till node 10834. 5595 nodes done, 6136 to go. 26) Writing shell based update script. Discovery: 24MB aren't enough. Hopefully 64 are. Nope. extended inserts for revisions are apparently not the brightest idea: Huge memory consumption. Hmm, no, all updates got through. Selecting the revisions to put them into old_revisions table screwed it. Learned about CREATE TABLE old_revisions SELECT syntax. Yay! finally. 24 MB are just not enough the update.php script seems to still break. 27) Benchmarks! /node Requests per second: 1.54 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 632 649 40.5 636 791 /tracker Requests per second: 0.86 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1119 1165 65.8 1160 1461 Ok: So we get an improvement for many node_loads, but none for simple selects from node. More tests can be done. 28) roll new patch Ain't Drupal fun? killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 19:06 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 19:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 20:37 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 21:49 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.p… (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 21:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:00 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 03:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 04:39 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 16:40 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 15:55 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.p… (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 16:10 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 18:14 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 19:20 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 21:23 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 26, 2004 - 04:35 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 03:04 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 03:05 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 03:05 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 15, 2004 - 07:05 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 24, 2004 - 06:21 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 14:26 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: Update this patch to CVS HEAD. Rename revid to vid. Rename node_rev to node_revisions. Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. Rename $rnode to $revision. Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 02:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-r… (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 14:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 19:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 23:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 10:58 : Dries Some more comments: db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 19:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 19:50 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 00:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 10:32 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 6, 2005 - 22:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 23:43 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 01:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_3.patch (29.93 KB) I've implemented the aforementioned solution. This makes the patch much smaller. The patch now also removes taxonomy_node_has_term() which wasn't used anywhere. I'd really apprciate if some people could test drive the patch. It will be another huge improvement for 4.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 03:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 25, 2005 - 22:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2005 - 00:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2005 - 00:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 22:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 23:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 02:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 02:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 03:54 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 22:20 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 23:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 03:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 06:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 09:07 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 09:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 01:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 21:17 : dmjossel No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 22:44 : killes(a)www.drop.org @dmjossel: thanks. @all. The strange problem I reported was apparently php 5 related. After applying Steven's php 5 patch it went away. One error is remaining: If I create a new forum topic it will be shown as part of the book on preview. Hmm, that was due to a db that got corrupted during testing so that is fixed too. Please poke around at the test site and look if you find more errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 09:16 : Steven By the way, I just remembered that Drupal.org has some blogs lingering on in the database even though blog.module is not enabled. Perhaps this is causing troubles? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 13:22 : Anonymous I can't see why it would. Drupal.org will need extra updates for images and project nodes because those have their own tables. GK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 6, 2005 - 14:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_16.patch (52.49 KB) Updated to apply to cvs again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 22, 2005 - 22:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_17.patch (49.64 KB) Updated again. All we need is a patch to upload module and an upgrade path for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 4, 2005 - 06:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_18.patch (52.31 KB) Updated once more. Moved log field from book to node_revisions table as discussed in Antwerp. upload module still missing. We need to decide under which circumstances the log field should be displayed. Should that be added to the workflow? Should it depend on the revisions setting? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 21:27 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_20.patch (75.52 KB) Ok, here it is: Yet another revision of this grrrrreat patch. Changes from previous versions: - supports versioning for uploaded files. A problem is that if you delete a file, it will be gone for all revisions. - the log field is now in the node_revsions table, but each module has to decide whether to show it or not. I've implemented it for the page and the book type odes. Also, the field can be edited when adding non-book nodes to the book. The log is displayed on the revisions page and if a node is moderated. - the revisions are moved to an old_revisions table to a) get the node table smaller and b) still leave the mavailable for contrib modules that want to retreive old version data. The patch has been applied to killes.drupaldevs.org/revision where it can be tested by anybody (especially people who have "site admin" rights on drupal.org) The database is from drupal.org and you should b able to log in with your pass or simply mail yourself a new one. Gerhard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 21:51 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch (59.42 KB) BTW, I marked this a bug because atm the revisions field can grow quite big. Neil has reported problems from some users who were not able to load some nodes due to to many large revisions. Also, som unrelated stuff crept into the patch. New version attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 8, 2005 - 07:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_22.patch (60.29 KB) Ok, I think I got it. Changes to last version: - uploads are no properly versioned. Missing are still pgsql checks and updates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 10, 2005 - 18:58 : Anonymous Was able to get http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch to work with drupal-cvs.tar.gz (10 March 2005) by: - includes/database.mysql.inc: Commenting out duplicates for functions function db_begin_transaction and function db_commit_transaction - modules: node.module: Removing "'title' => $node->title," from $node_table_values variable declaration and removing "'title' => "'%s'"," from "$node_table_types" variable declaration. Happy to submit a patch if requested. I'll watch this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 12, 2005 - 01:59 : killes(a)www.drop.org The duplicate function has been removed in rev 22 of this patch. Why do you think the changes in node_save are needed? Titles are saved in both tables for performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 18:12 : jlerner Hi - I posted comment #62. The changes to node_save appear to be needed because recent patches (both 21 and 22) remove the field 'title' from table 'node'. So without the changes to node_save, node.module is broken and generates errors. Joshua ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 18:29 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_23.patch (61.17 KB) Thanks, Joshua, for catching this. node:title is there to stay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 13, 2005 - 18:29 : moshe weitzman since HEAD is open again, perhaps it is a good time to revisit this patch. once this is committed, lets address - http://drupal.org/node/11071 "node_validate does not respect group editing" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 18, 2005 - 17:43 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 18, 2005 - 18:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24_0.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 19, 2005 - 07:19 : Dries I'll commit this patch later this week! If you haven't checked this patch already, I urge you to test/check it out because it will have significant impact on existing code and modules! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 19, 2005 - 07:21 : Dries Also, what do people think about the n.title being duplicated? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 19, 2005 - 07:26 : chx I won't lose any sleep because of duplicated titles... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 19, 2005 - 20:35 : killes(a)www.drop.org Let me explain why I have chosen to duplicate the title (and also the uid): If you look at all the queries in Drupal, you will find that most of them only need the title and th uid of a node. That is, by duplicating it, we save expensive joins on the node_revisions table. Due to this fact, this patch is actually a performance improvement. A note about updating contrib module: Strictly speaking they wouldn't need to be updated. They only need to if their authors decide that their info should be available for revisioning. The upgrade path for forum.module in my update.inc patch (+ the forum patch) should show you what needs to be done. I will write a note for the update page once the patch hits core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 24, 2005 - 23:21 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch (60.38 KB) Updated to cvs. Dries: Based on some remarks in #drupal this is the last update I am going to do. Apply it or won't fix it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 30, 2005 - 05:42 : Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch.patch (528 bytes) That's a big patch. I've only started looking through it. I noticed one little typo, affecting updates. A patch to your last patch is attached. I'm running with the revision patch on my dev server now happily. I like the concept. What happens if you click 'stop' on your browser in the middle of a MySQL "transaction"? I assume that kills the connection to MySQL, and the lock is freed? But this then leaves changes only partially applied? What exactly does locking/unlocking the tables buy us in MySQL? I don't see anywhere that we detect if an apply fails part way through, and thus roll back...? What am I missing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 30, 2005 - 09:11 : Dries Jeremy: many of us are worried about the performance ramifications this patch introduces. Early experiments showed a small performance improvement (while a performance regression might be expected). More performance reports from large sites like kerneltrap.org will certainly help this patch. Mind to do a quick performance comparision and to report back with some numbers? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 30, 2005 - 14:38 : Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Dries: I'm not running HEAD on kerneltrap, so this really isn't a possibility. Furthermore, until I understand why we're locking tables, I don't like it. The idea of revisions in their own tables is great. The idea of locking tables to get (without any obvious benefit) there really worries me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 30, 2005 - 16:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Jeremy: Thanks for looking at the patch! Also for catching the typo. :) Did you try to upgrade your database? If yes, how did it go? One of Dries' concerns is the complexity of the upgrade. How many nodes and revisions did the db have? About database locking: This part of the patch was created by Nick and I simply continued to use it. Maybe the code should rather be: if(db_begin_transaction(array('{node}', '{node_revisions}', '{watchdog}', '{sessions}', '{files}'))) { db_query($node_query, $node_table_values); db_query($revisions_query, $revisions_table_values); db_commit_transaction(); ... } The idea is probably to avoid two updates at the same time. I don't think the locking helps if you abort the script at an inconvenient time. Rollbacks aren't implemented in all mysql versions. We could omit the db locking if deemed inappropriate. Maybe Nick can explain his ideas behind this. @Dries: I wonder who the "many of us" are. They certainly haven't spoken to me. Moshe had some reservations about the upgrade path and project module, but the time that project module abused revisions to store issue updates was long ago and his reservations were resolved. Nobody else (besides you of course and now Jeremy) has voiced reservations in a way that was audible to me. If you grep through the patch you will notice that there are only four queries which have a join on the node_revisions table. Two of them are in node_load and in the other cases the join replaced a join on the node table. The two queries in node_load are the only ones that have both a join on the node and the revisions query. Thus, loading of individual nodes might become somewhat slower. All other queries will be faster since the node table is now much smaller. Also, node loading does not have to be slower, it depends on your node table. If you had a lot of revisions and thus a large table, then the new scheme will make your queries actually faster since we do not load the revisions on each and every node load anymore. If you didn't have many revisions your node_load migth be somewhat slower. WRT to the update script Karoly pointed out that we could use multiple insert queries instead one query per revision. This would probably make the update somewhat faster. I am willing to work on this iff you declare that you will commit the patch afterwards. I'd need to know if this will work on pgsql and on all supported mysql versions before I work on it. About locking: Database locking is dog slow, at least on mysql. I was using locks in an earlier version of the upgrade script but had to remove it for (serious!) performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 17:07 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_26.patch (46.45 KB) Ok, another update, cause I need it myself. I've left out the transaction stuff for now. It is in principle unrelated to this patch and should be discussed elsewhere. This also makes the patch smaller and easier to review (hint, hint). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 22:32 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 22:32 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_27.patch (39.05 KB) The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:23 : Dries Got one error during the upgrade path: ALTER TABLE {book} ADD PRIMARY KEY vid (vid) FAILED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org This had happend to me as well, when I tested this patch. The reason is that for some reason the vid is not unique. Most likely there are some entries with vid = 0 in there. Can you check which node types those have? it always was an error in the test database. See: http://drupal.org/node/7582#comment-20678 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:27 : Dries Actually, I got 2850 errors during the upgrade. Some of these: sprintf() [function.sprintf]: Too few arguments in drupal-cvs/includes/database.inc on line 154. Some of these: Query was empty query: in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. And this: Unknown table 'n' in field list query: SELECT n.nid, n.vid FROM node INNER JOIN files f ON n.nid = f.nid in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:29 : Dries Or this: user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' query: SELECT parent, weight, log FROM book WHERE nid = 1 in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 9, 2005 - 23:52 : Dries The time required to generate my main page went from 902 ms (before upgrade) to 2139 ms (after upgrade). The time required to generate a forum listing (?q=forum/x) went from 1872 ms (before upgrade) to 2874 ms (after upgrade). Maybe this is because my database is not consistent as the result of the upgrade errors (yet I don't see any errors on the pages I benchmarked). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 02:24 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_28.patch (53.47 KB) Ok, let me get to this from the bottom to the top: - my test runs indicated a different development wrt timing. If I had gotten your results, I had stopped working on this long ago. So your results are wrong for some reason. - user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' Wasn't my day, the book patch got lost. It is contained now. First -R the old patch, then apply this one. - Unknown table 'n' in field list query: Walkah found this, but I forgot to fix it. Fixed now. - I've no idea where the other queries come from. I am hoping that either your test db is borken or they are follow ups from the other ones. If you let me have your test db, I'll try some debugging. Thanks for wasting your time, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 10, 2005 - 07:07 : Dries I double-checked and the numbers don't seem to lie. I'll test some more after work on another machine to make sure it is not platform-specific.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] No node-options settings generates error
by jjeff 11 May '05

11 May '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/22551 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: jjeff Updated by: jjeff Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node_no-options.patch (1009 bytes) When there are no node options (such as 'published', 'in queue', etc) set for a node-type, the variable_get() in line 1327 does not return an array. So all of the in_array() functions that follow generate errors. Here is a patch that substitutes an empty array for $node_options if it isn't an array. This fixes the problem. -Jeff jjeff

1 0