15

As the title suggests, I'm working on a site written in python and it makes several calls to the urllib2 module to read websites. I then parse them with BeautifulSoup.

As I have to read 5-10 sites, the page takes a while to load.

I'm just wondering if there's a way to read the sites all at once? Or anytricks to make it faster, like should I close the urllib2.urlopen after each read, or keep it open?

Added: also, if I were to just switch over to php, would that be faster for fetching and Parsi g HTML and XML files from other sites? I just want it to load faster, as opposed to the ~20 seconds it currently takes

4
  • 2
    What makes you think open is slow? BeautifulSoup (as useful as it is) does far more work and I'd presume it is the bottleneck in the code. Did you try it without parsing? A code sample here would help. Commented Aug 12, 2010 at 22:30
  • No just going PHP will not help. Python has tons of room to be fast, you just need to optimize your code. Commented Aug 12, 2010 at 22:41
  • Oh shoot, so the threading thing isn't good? Thanks for thwayward up Commented Aug 12, 2010 at 23:06
  • See my answer to Parallel fetching of files question. Commented Jun 22, 2012 at 12:16

9 Answers 9

18

I'm rewriting Dumb Guy's code below using modern Python modules like threading and Queue.

import threading, urllib2 import Queue urls_to_load = [ 'http://stackoverflow.com/', 'http://slashdot.org/', 'http://www.archive.org/', 'http://www.yahoo.co.jp/', ] def read_url(url, queue): data = urllib2.urlopen(url).read() print('Fetched %s from %s' % (len(data), url)) queue.put(data) def fetch_parallel(): result = Queue.Queue() threads = [threading.Thread(target=read_url, args = (url,result)) for url in urls_to_load] for t in threads: t.start() for t in threads: t.join() return result def fetch_sequencial(): result = Queue.Queue() for url in urls_to_load: read_url(url,result) return result 

Best time for find_sequencial() is 2s. Best time for fetch_parallel() is 0.9s.

Also it is incorrect to say thread is useless in Python because of GIL. This is one of those case when thread is useful in Python because the the threads are blocked on I/O. As you can see in my result the parallel case is 2 times faster.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

10 Comments

Yes, if this was the only way to fetch URLs, this would be closer to the correct way to use threads. However, async IO is still going to be faster, more maintainable, allow for deterministic debugging, and so on. Even without the GIL, it would be a superior solution.
Oops, it looks like Dump Guy has retracted his answer. Hey I say you were going on the right track!
Aaron, can you provide a working example to show that async IO code is more maintainable?
@Wai Yip Tung, less code is going to be more maintainable than more code, especially if it's immediately obvious what that code does. Threads require more code to do less in order to work around the problems with shared-state concurrency (i.e. you need locks). You could use worker processes instead of worker threads in order to eliminate the shared-state part, but still, you could just use twisted and be done with it.
Oh, I didn't realize twisted could fetch pages, thanks for metioning that!
|
9

Edit: Please take a look at Wai's post for a better version of this code. Note that there is nothing wrong with this code and it will work properly, despite the comments below.

The speed of reading web pages is probably bounded by your Internet connection, not Python.

You could use threads to load them all at once.

import thread, time, urllib websites = {} def read_url(url): websites[url] = urllib.open(url).read() for url in urls_to_load: thread.start_new_thread(read_url, (url,)) while websites.keys() != urls_to_load: time.sleep(0.1) # Now websites will contain the contents of all the web pages in urls_to_load 

5 Comments

The bottleneck is probably not even the internet connection but the remote server. However, BeautifulSoup is slow in any case. So it will add an extra delay.
Oh okay, that makes sense. And I appreciate the example code thanks!
-1 for threads and suggesting the thread module and not doing any locking or even using the Queue module. You're just going to add way more complexity and locking overhead for no gain if you use threads. Even if this wasn't true, your code demonstrates that you don't really know how to use threads.
The global interpreter lock should keep the dictionary assignment from happening simultaneously in two different threads. I should have mentioned it, though.
@Dumb Guy, no, it doesn't. The GIL isn't a replacement for proper locking, and also isn't present in all python implementations. Either way, mutating global state is a horrible, horrible way to communicate between threads. This is what the Queue module is for.
3

It is maby not perfect. But when I need the data from a site. I just do this:

import socket def geturldata(url): #NO HTTP URLS PLEASE!!!!! server = url.split("/")[0] args = url.replace(server,"") returndata = str() s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) s.connect((server, 80)) #lets connect :p s.send("GET /%s HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: %s\r\n\r\n" % (args, server)) #simple http request while 1: data = s.recv(1024) #buffer if not data: break returndata = returndata + data s.close() return returndata.split("\n\r")[1] 

Comments

2

As a general rule, a given construct in any language is not slow until it is measured.

In Python, not only do timings often run counter to intuition but the tools for measuring execution time are exceptionally good.

1 Comment

This is a GREAT comment -- Unfortunately, I don't really think it's an "answer"...
2

Scrapy might be useful for you. If you don't need all of its functionality, you might just use twisted's twisted.web.client.getPage instead. Asynchronous IO in one thread is going to be way more performant and easy to debug than anything that uses multiple threads and blocking IO.

3 Comments

Okay, I've heard about that being faster. Thanks!
@msw, is my answer cut off in your browser? The full sentence is "Asynchronous IO in one thread is going to be way more performant and easy to debug than anything that uses multiple threads and blocking IO."
I should have been more clear; sorry. The OP hasn't even made a case for needing asynchronous IO, and your philosophy of "get it right, first" noted above is a good stance. But I fear it isn't impressing the OP, oh well ;)
2

Not sure why nobody mentions multiprocessing (if anyone knows why this might be a bad idea, let me know):

import multiprocessing from urllib2 import urlopen URLS = [....] def get_content(url): return urlopen(url).read() pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=8) # play with ``processes`` for best results results = pool.map(get_content, URLS) # This line blocks, look at map_async # for non-blocking map() call pool.close() # the process pool no longer accepts new tasks pool.join() # join the processes: this blocks until all URLs are processed for result in results: # do something 

There are a few caveats with multiprocessing pools. First, unlike threads, these are completely new Python processes (interpreter). While it's not subject to global interpreter lock, it means you are limited in what you can pass across to the new process.

You cannot pass lambdas and functions that are defined dynamically. The function that is used in the map() call must be defined in your module in a way that allows the other process to import it.

The Pool.map(), which is the most straightforward way to process multiple tasks concurrently, doesn't provide a way to pass multiple arguments, so you may need to write wrapper functions or change function signatures, and/or pass multiple arguments as part of the iterable that is being mapped.

You cannot have child processes spawn new ones. Only the parent can spawn child processes. This means you have to carefully plan and benchmark (and sometimes write multiple versions of your code) in order to determine what the most effective use of processes would be.

Drawbacks notwithstanding, I find multiprocessing to be one of the most straightforward ways to do concurrent blocking calls. You can also combine multiprocessing and threads (afaik, but please correct me if I'm wrong), or combine multiprocessing with green threads.

Comments

1

1) Are you opening the same site many times, or many different site? If many different sites, I think urllib2 is good. If doing the same site over and over again, I have had some personal luck with urllib3 http://code.google.com/p/urllib3/

2) BeautifulSoup is easy to use, but is pretty slow. If you do have to use it, make sure to decompose your tags to get rid of memory leaks.. or it will likely lead to memory issues (did for me).

What do your memory and cpu look like? If you are maxing your CPU, make sure you are using real heavyweight threads, so you can run on more than 1 core.

2 Comments

I'm accessing XML pages for Amazon, eBay, and Half. So while similar, the products and prices change
Okay so then urllib2 is fine. You need to thread out your program to use heavyweight threads, and parse as efficiently as possibly.
0

How about using pycurl?

You can apt-get it by

$ sudo apt-get python-pycurl

1 Comment

Pycurl is not faster than urllib2 in my experience
0

First, you should try multithreading/multiprocessing packages. Currently, the three popular ones are multiprocessing;concurrent.futures and [threading][3]. Those packages could help you to open multi url at the same time, which could increase the speed.

More importantly, after using multithread processing, and if you try to open hundreds urls at the same time, you will find urllib.request.urlopen is very slow, and opening and read the context become the most time-consuming part. So if you want to make it even faster, you should try requests packages, requests.get(url).content() is faster than urllib.request.urlopen(url).read().

So, here I list two example to do fast multi url parsing, and the speed is faster than the other answers. The first example use classical threading package and generate hundreds thread at the same time. (One trivial shortcoming is it cannot keep the original order of the ticker.)

import time import threading import pandas as pd import requests from bs4 import BeautifulSoup ticker = pd.ExcelFile('short_tickerlist.xlsx') ticker_df = ticker.parse(str(ticker.sheet_names[0])) ticker_list = list(ticker_df['Ticker']) start = time.time() result = [] def fetch(ticker): url = ('http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/' + ticker) print('Visit ' + url) text = requests.get(url).content soup = BeautifulSoup(text,'lxml') result.append([ticker,soup]) print(url +' fetching...... ' + str(time.time()-start)) if __name__ == '__main__': process = [None] * len(ticker_list) for i in range(len(ticker_list)): process[i] = threading.Thread(target=fetch, args=[ticker_list[i]]) for i in range(len(ticker_list)): print('Start_' + str(i)) process[i].start() # for i in range(len(ticker_list)): # print('Join_' + str(i)) # process[i].join() print("Elapsed Time: %ss" % (time.time() - start)) 

The second example uses multiprocessing package, and it is little more straightforward. Since you just need to state the number of pool and map the function. The order will not change after fetching the context and the speed is similar to the first example but much faster than other method.

from multiprocessing import Pool import requests from bs4 import BeautifulSoup import pandas as pd import os import time os.chdir('file_path') start = time.time() def fetch_url(x): print('Getting Data') myurl = ("http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cp?s=%s" % x) html = requests.get(myurl).content soup = BeautifulSoup(html,'lxml') out = str(soup) listOut = [x, out] return listOut tickDF = pd.read_excel('short_tickerlist.xlsx') li = tickDF['Ticker'].tolist() if __name__ == '__main__': p = Pool(5) output = p.map(fetch_url, ji, chunksize=30) print("Time is %ss" %(time.time()-start)) 

Comments

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.