I'm doing my first foray with mysql and I have a doubt about how to handle the connection(s) my applications has.
What I am doing now is opening a connection and keeping it alive until I terminate my program. I do a mysql_ping() every now and then and the connection is started with MYSQL_OPT_RECONNECT.
The other option (I can think of), would be to start a new connection before doing anything that requires my connection to the database and closing it after I'm done with it.
What are the pros and cons of these two approaches?
what are the "side effects" of a long connection?
What is the most used method of handling this?
Cheers ;)
Some extra details
At this point I am keeping the connection alive and I ping it every now and again to now it's status and reconnect if needed.
In spite of this, when there is some consistent concurrency with queries happening in quick succession, I get a "Server has gone away" message and after a while the connection is re-established.
I'm left wondering if this is a side effect of a prolonged connection or if this is just a case of bad mysql server configuration.
Any ideas?
In general there is quite some amount of overhead incurred when opening a connection. Depending on how often you expect this to happen it might be ok, but if you are writing any kind of application that executes more than just a very few commands per program run, I would recommend a connection pool (for server type apps) or at least a single or very few connections from your standalone app to be kept open for some time and reused for multiple transactions.
That way you have better control over how many connections get opened at the application level, even before the database server gets involved. This is a service an application server offers you, but it can also be rolled up rather easily if you want to keep it smaller.
Apart from performance reasons a pool is also a good idea to be prepared for peaks in demand. When a lot of requests come in and each of them tries to open a separate connection to the database - or as you suggested even more (per transaction) - you are quickly going to run out of resources. Keep in mind that every connection consumes memory inside MySQL!
Also you want to make sure to use a non-root user to connect, because if you don't (I think it is tied to the MySQL SUPER privilege), you might find yourself locked out. MySQL reserves at least one connection for an administrator for problem fixing, but if your app connects with that privilege, all connections would already be used up when you try to put out the fire manually.
Unless you are worried about having too many connections open (i.e. over 1,000), you she leave the connection open. There is overhead in connecting/reconnecting that will only slow things down. If you know you are going to need the connection to stay open for a while, run this query instead of pinging periodically:
SET SESSION wait_timeout=#
Where # is the number of seconds to leave an idle connection open.
What kind of application are you writing? If it's a webscript: keep it open. If it's an executable, pool your connections (if necessary, most of the times a singleton will do).
Related
I'm working on a website that interacts with the database several times on a single page. At the moment, I'm opening a connection once at the top of the script and closing it after every query(at the bottom of the script).
But I read an article stressing the importance of closing a connection after each query, reopening it if another query needs to be made.
This doesn't seem practical, since it would noticeably increase the execution duration.
On the other end of the scale, I know some people don't even close the connection.
So my question is:
Which is the best method in general? Keep the connection open throughout the whole script, or open/close it for each query? And is it worth closing a connection?
I understand there's other related topics, but they all seem to have conflicting answers.
Thank you!
it dependents buddy :), usually some developers keep open the connection at peak times, but this is not nice to keep a (external) connection alive.
the best practice would be keeping connection open for a timeout, for example keep connection open for 10 seconds and after that close it if connection was idle.
also I have to mention about pool, databases usually provides connection pools for external access, it means database prepare x(256) number of connections, so the execution time will be decreased for the next connection, because they have prepared before, it dependents to the database behavior, for example a database would recycle a closed connection again and use it for another request, while another database would create one connection and act with external requests as sessions.
but generally this is recommended don't keep a database connection open, because it takes some resources(external resources that you cannot manage them) that causes reduce the performance.
and +1 for good question :).
I have program that constantly query a mysql server. Each time I access the server I made a connection then query it. I wonder if I can actually save time by reuse the same connection and only reconnect when the connection is closed. Given that I can fit many of my queries within the duration of connection timeout and my program has only one thread.
yes - this is a good idea.
remember to use the timeout so you don't leave connections open permanently.
also, remember to close it when the program exits. (even after exceptions)
Yes by all means, re-use the connection!
If you are also doing updates/delete/inserts through that connection make sure you commit (or rollback) you transactions properly so that once you are "done" with the connection, it is left in a clean state.
Another option would be to use a connection pooler.
Yes, you should reuse the connection, within reason. Don't leave a connection open indefinitely, but you can batch your queries together so that you get everything done, and then close it immediately afterwards.
Leaving a connection open too long means that under high traffic you might hit the maximum number of possible connections to your server.
Reconnecting often is just slow, causes a lot of unnecessary chatter, and is simply a waste.
Instead, you should look into using mysql_pconnect function which will create persistent connection to the database. You can read about it here:
http://php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-pconnect.php
My site has always used persistent connections, based on my understanding of them there's no reason not to. Why close the connection when it can be reused? I have a site that in total accesses about 7 databases. It's not a huge traffic site, but it's big enough. What's your take on persistent, should I use them?
With persistent connections:
You cannot build transaction processing effectively
impossible user sessions on the same connection
app are not scalable. With time you may need to extend it and it will require management/tracking of persistent connections
if the script, for whatever reason, could not release the lock on the table, then any following scripts will block indefinitely and one should restart the db server. Using transactions, transaction block will also pass to the next script (using the same connection) if script execution ends before the transaction block completes, etc.
Persistent connections do not bring anything you can do with non-persistent connections.
Then, why to use them, at all?
The only possible reason is performance, to use them when overhead of creating a link to your SQL Server is high. And this depends on many factors like:
database type
whether MySQl server is on the same machine and, if not, how far? might be out of your local network /domain?
how much overloaded by other processes the machine on which MySQL sits
One always can replace persistent connections with non-persistent connections. It might change the performance of the script, but not its behavior!
Commercial RDMS might be licensed by the number of concurrent opened connections and here the persistent connections can misserve
My knowledge on the area is kinda limited so I can't give you many details on the subject but, as far as I know, the process of creating connections and handing them to a thread really costs resources, so I would avoid it if I were you. Anyhow I think that most of this decisions can't be generalized and depend on the business.
If, for instance, your application communicates continuously with the Database and will only stop when the application is closed, then perhaps persistent connections are the way to go, for you avoid the process mentioned before.
However, if your application only communicates with the Database sporadically to get minor information then closing the connection might be more sane, for you won't waste resources on opened connections that are not being used.
Also there is a technique called "Connection Pooling", in which you create a series of connections a priori and keep them there for other applications to consume. In this case connections are persistent to the database but non-persistent to the applications.
Note: Connections in MSSQL are always persistent to the database because connection pooling is the default behavior.
I am building a little daemon which periodically (every 30 seconds) checks for new data and enters it in a local MySQL Database.
I was just wondering whether it was better to create a connection to the database when the application launches and always use that connection throughout the application until it is closed, or if it should only open a connection when there is new data, close it after the data has been added and then repeat this when there is new data 30 seconds later?
Thank you.
I would recommend that you do whatever you find easiest to code. Don't waste any time trying to solve what will most likely be a non-problem.
If it turns out there is any difficulty with contention, connection limits or other such things you can fix it later.
That depends.
In your case the performance won't matter, since you won't be performing thousands of queries/logins per second and the new connection/login overhead is in (tens of) milliseconds.
If you use a single connection, you have to make sure your daemon handles sudden disconnections from the MySQL side and is able to recover from there. Also if you ever move your application so your application would be on a different server than the MySQL, then many firewalls can drop prolonged connections every now and then.
If you create a new connection every time and then disconnect when finished, things like firewalls cleaning up old connections won't bite you so easily.
i have a grails application with a webflow. I store my inner flow objects of interest in the converstaion scope. After entering and leaving the flow a few times, i see that the single user connected to the DB (MySql) generates a lot of threads on the MySql Server which are not released. The processlist in mysql show me the threads in sleeping mode and a netstat on the client shows me established connections to the mysql server.
I assume the connections are held active and not released. But why is that? What do grails exactly do when entering and leaving a flow? Why are so many connections opened and not closed?
Any help would be appreciated.
regards,
masiar
Grails uses hibernate, which in turn uses connection pooling; these are idle connections, waiting for traffic.
You can learn more about Hibernate's connection pooling at: https://www.hibernate.org/214.html
This is actually desirable behavior; it can take a non-negligible amount of time to open a new connection, much more time than it takes to send a query down an open one.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" - unless you are seeing a performance problem related to the database, I'd leave this alone.
Think of the hibernate pooling like a steady and ready pool of cars having their engines turned on at all time for you or your buddies to jump in and go to anywhere you want..., well no, to the database. No need to wait for a taxi or to jump start your own car before you are up and running... all good here
Conversations are meant to stick around as long as they are needed. Often you dive down into workflows and upon finishing them, you return to your old, and thus still alive conversation. It is meant like that... all good here too