Play! 2.3 Template Improvements

My thanks go out to Grant Klopper from The Guardian. Last week, he validated a change I made to the Play! Framework back in December. After upgrading from Play! 2.2 to 2.3, Grant noticed dramatic changes in response times and memory - both for the better. The changes were so awesome that Grant was able to shut down 2/3 of the servers running that app. A conversation on Twitter followed with James Roper, a lead developer at Typesafe, wherein the root cause for the improvements was discovered - my template fixes. A subsequent blog post from Typesafe was released about the story, thanking the contributors and soliciting further enhancements to their code base.

Response time of The Guardian website during upgrade to Play 2.3.
Copied from Grant's Tweet about response times mentioned above.

Without bragging about my awesomeness, I wanted to explain how I found and fixed the issue and then share some benchmarks of my own. Perhaps in this way, I can also solicit enhancements to the Play! framework, which has been a tremendous help in building state-of-the-art applications on the web.

Strange Loop 2013 Workshop

I've been accepted as a speaker at strangeloop, a programmer conference that focuses on emerging languages, concurrent and distributed systems, new database technologies, front-end web, and mobile apps. The conference is in St Louis, Missouri, on September 18-20, 2013.

My workshop is entitled Your First Scala Web Application using Play! 2.1. Here's the quick blurb I submitted.

Storing UUIDs with Anorm

I am not a big fan of Object Relational Mappers (ORMs). It is too easy to turn a simple query into a massive CPU-eating hydra - complete with 7 outer joins and no index usage. When I write code, I try to write it in such a way that the worst things to do are the hardest. That way, when I'm in a rush, I still write good code.

Enough about my rant: enter Anorm. I've been developing software on the Scala / Play stack for over a year now. Anorm is currently the supported database connector. It is a thin layer on top of JDBC that takes out all of the ugliness, but leaves the manual SQL writing goodness.

One of the things that Anorm does not do is read and write UUIDs. In 200 lines of copy-paste code, you'll have Anorm reading and writing UUIDs like a pro. A side effect of this code is that Anorm will also be able to handle byte arrays.

"In" Clause with Anorm

At Lucidchart, two coding styles have been adopted because Anorm doesn't support the 'in' clause.

1. Code that allows for, or is conducive to, SQL injection.
   
   Example:
   SQL(""" SELECT * FROM users WHERE id IN (%s) """.format(userIds.mkString(",")))
   
   
2. Code that is hard to follow and duplicate.
   
   Example
   val params = List(1, 2, 3) 
   val paramsList = for ( i <- 0 until params.size ) yield ("userId" + 
   i) // results in List("userId0", "userId1", "userId2") 
   SQL(""" SELECT * FROM users WHERE id IN ({%s}) """.format(paramsList.mkString("},{")) // 
   produces "id in ({userId0},{userId1},{userId2})" 
   .on(paramsList.zip(params)) // produces Map("userId0" -> 1, 
   "userId1" -> 2, ...)
   

Ugly much? The madness ends here with code samples.

UUIDs in MySQL

Auto incremented numbers can be so nice for unique IDs in a database; they're guaranteed to be unique, can range to fit your needs (tinyint to unsigned bigint), and easy to use. When working in a sharded environment, they may not fit the bill anymore; you either lose global uniqueness or you lose ease of use (depending on your sharding mechanism). One very good alternative is to use UUIDs.

UUIDs solve the global uniqueness and ease of use problem at the same time, but introduces another problem in the database layer - memory footprint. A UUID is a 36 byte ASCII string of characters representing a 16 byte value. I've seen them stored as CHAR(36), VARCHAR(36), etc. The problem with storing them in their ASCII form is that the index will grow beyond the capacity of the database server faster than when they're stored in a binary form. Memory will fill faster, queries will hit the disk more frequently, and it will ultimately cost more money to save the exact same information. It's not worth it.