lower default wake_interval

[joevandyk]

5 seconds seems pretty high?

The polling query should be pretty quick. I have three worker processes set to 0.01 running and there's no noticeable postgresql cpu or disk activity.

Maybe set it to 1 or 0.25 or 0.1?

[chanks]

The defaults assume that you'll be running Que in a web process where you
have other threads serving requests - that way, when one of those threads
commits a transaction that inserts a job, it can simply wake up one of that
process' workers to run it (this already happens automatically if you're
using Sequel, and I'd like to find a way to have ActiveRecord do it as
well). The wake_interval is there mainly to pick up scheduled jobs in case
there aren't any workers awake when their time comes.

So it makes sense to me to set a lower default wake_interval when running
workers as a rake task, where you wouldn't have the benefit of
intra-process communication, but not in the more typical (I hope) case of
running in a web process. I think it would also make sense for the rake
task to respect a WAKE_INTERVAL environment variable, too. Would that be
enough?

I've also been putting together plans for a LISTEN-NOTIFY system that would
replace the current polling setup. I'm going to spend some time
experimenting with it soon - if it works well, that'll be the long-term
solution to this.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Joe Van Dyk notifications@github.comwrote:

5 seconds seems pretty high?

The polling query should be pretty quick. I have three worker processes
set to 0.01 running and there's no noticeable postgresql activity. Maybe
set it to 1 or 0.25 or so?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/8
.

[joevandyk]

Yes, a QUE_WAKE_INTERVAL + lower default setting for rake tasks would work.

[joevandyk]

One nice thing about the polling system is that you don't have to keep a connection open. You can start a new connection on each poll (say, you are using pgbouncer).