CHANGELOG | API | current Break Version:

[com.taoensso/tufte "2.0.1"]     ; Stable
[com.taoensso/tufte "2.1.0-RC4"] ; Dev, see CHANGELOG for details

Please consider helping to support my continued open-source Clojure/Script work?

Even small contributions can add up + make a big difference to help sustain my time writing, maintaining, and supporting Tufte and other Clojure/Script libraries. Thank you!

- Peter Taoussanis

Tufte

Simple profiling and performance monitoring for Clojure/Script

Charles Joseph Minard's Carte Figurative, one of Edward Tufte's favourite examples of good data visualization.

10-second example

(require '[taoensso.tufte :as tufte :refer (defnp p profiled profile)])

;; We'll request to send `profile` stats to `println`:
(tufte/add-basic-println-handler! {})

;;; Let's define a couple dummy fns to simulate doing some expensive work
(defn get-x [] (Thread/sleep 500)             "x val")
(defn get-y [] (Thread/sleep (rand-int 1000)) "y val")

;; How do these fns perform? Let's check:

(profile ; Profile any `p` forms called during body execution
  {} ; Profiling options; we'll use the defaults for now
  (dotimes [_ 5]
    (p :get-x (get-x))
    (p :get-y (get-y))))

;; The following will be printed to *out*:
;;
;;       pId  nCalls       Min     50% ≤     90% ≤     95% ≤     99% ≤       Max      Mean  MAD  Clock Total
;;
;;    :get-y       5   94.01ms  500.99ms  910.14ms  910.14ms  910.14ms  910.14ms  580.49ms ±45%  2.90s   53%
;;    :get-x       5  503.05ms  504.68ms  504.86ms  504.86ms  504.86ms  504.86ms  504.37ms  ±0%  2.52s   46%
;;
;; Accounted                                                                                     5.42s  100%
;;     Clock                                                                                     5.43s  100%

Features

• Small, fast, cross-platform Clojure/Script codebase
• Tiny, flexible API: p, profiled, profile
• Great compile-time elision and runtime filtering support
• Arbitrary Clojure/Script form-level profiling
• Full support for thread-local and multi-threaded profiling
• Stats are just Clojure maps: aggregate, analyse, log, serialize to db, ...
• Ideal for ongoing application performance monitoring in staging, production, etc.

Quickstart

Add the necessary dependency to your project:

[com.taoensso/tufte "2.0.1"]

And setup your namespace imports:

(ns my-clj-ns ; Clojure namespace
  (:require [taoensso.tufte :as tufte :refer (defnp p profiled profile)]))

(ns my-cljs-ns ; ClojureScript namespace
  (:require [taoensso.tufte :as tufte :refer-macros (defnp p profiled profile)]))

Step 1: identify forms you'd like to [sometimes] profile

Just wrap them with p and give them an id (namespaced keyword):

(defn get-customer-info []
  (let [raw-customer-map (p ::get-raw-customer (fetch-from-db))]
    (p ::enrich-raw-customer
      (do-some-work raw-customer-map))))

Tufte will record the execution times of these p forms whenever profiling is active.

NB: whether or not profiling is active, a p form always returns its normal body result.

This last point is important: you never need to worry about Tufte messing with your return values.

Step 2: activate profiling of p forms

Activate profiling with profiled or profile:

API	Return value	Effect
profiled	[<body-result> <?pstats>]	None
profile	<body-result>	Sends <?pstats> to registered handlers[1]

[1] Register handlers using (tufte/add-handler! <handler-id> <ns-pattern> <handler-fn>)

Handler ideas: save to a db, log, put! to a core.async channel, filter, aggregate, use for a realtime analytics dashboard, examine for outliers or unexpected behaviour, feed into your other performance/analytics systems, ...

• Use profiled to handle pstats yourself directly at the callsite.
• Use profile to queue pstats for handling later/elsewhere.

Between the two, you have great flexibility for a wide range of use cases in production and during development/debugging.

Conditional profiling

Tufte offers extensive facilities to control if and when profiling happens.

Both compile-time elision and runtime filtering are supported.

Method 1/3: profiling levels

Every p, profiled, and profile form can take an optional profiling level ∈ #{0 1 2 3 4 5}.

This level must be >= tufte/*min-level* for profiling to occur.

For example:

(profiled {:level 3} ...) ; Only activates profiling when (>= 3 *min-level*)

Min level	Set with
Runtime	tufte/set-min-level!, tufte/with-min-level
Compile-time	TUFTE_MIN_LEVEL environment variable

Note that runtime filtering stacks with any compile-time elision

Method 2/3: namespace filtering

Likewise- p, profiled, and profile forms can be elided or filtered by the namespace in which they occur.

Namespace filter	Set with
Runtime	tufte/set-ns-pattern!, tufte-with-ns-pattern
Compile-time	TUFTE_NS_PATTERN environment variable

Note that runtime filtering stacks with any compile-time elision

Some example namespace patterns:

"foo.bar.baz"
"foo.bar.*"
#{"foo.bar.*" "some.lib.*"}
{:whitelist #{"foo.bar.*"} :blacklist #{"noisy.lib.*"}}

Method 3/3: arbitrary runtime conditions

Finally, profiled and profile both support an optional arbitrary test expression:

(profiled {:when my-cond?} ...) ; Only activates profiling when `my-cond?` is truthy

This can be used for a wide range of sophisticated behaviour including smart, application-aware rate limiting.

As one simpler example, we can get sampled profiling like this:

(profiled {:when (tufte/chance 0.5)} ...) ; Only activates profiling with 50% probability

Format pstats options

tufte/format-pstats takes an optional map as a second parameter to control formatting:

{;; Vector of ordered columns to include in output (all columns by default):
 :columns [:n-calls :min :p50 :p90 :p95 :p99 :max :mean :mad :clock :total]

 ;; Function called on each form id (pid), allowing format customization:
 :format-id-fn #_str (tufte/format-id-abbr) ; For abbreviated ids, see docstring for details

 ;; Allows for custom sorting of results:
 :sort-fn (fn [m] (get m :sum))}

If you're using tufte/add-basic-println-handler!, you can control formatting through the :format-pstats-opts option:

(tufte/add-basic-println-handler!
  {:format-pstats-opts {:columns [:n-calls :p50 :mean :clock :total]
                        :format-id-fn name}})

(defnp get-x [] (Thread/sleep 500)             "x val")
(defnp get-y [] (Thread/sleep (rand-int 1000)) "y val")

(profile
  {}
  (dotimes [_ 5]
    (get-x)
    (get-y)))

; How does this output look?

;; pId            nCalls      50% ≤       Mean      Clock  Total
;;
;; defn_get-y          5   572.09ms   567.82ms     2.84s     53%
;; defn_get-x          5   500.08ms   500.13ms     2.50s     47%
;;
;; Accounted                                       5.34s    100%
;; Clock                                           5.34s    100%

FAQ

How to use this for ongoing application performance monitoring?

The pstats objects generated from Tufte's profiled or profile calls are ~losslessly mergeable.

This gives you a lot of flexibility re: integrating Tufte as an ongoing performance monitoring tool.

As one example, suppose you have an HTTP application that you'd like to monitor+optimize for response times:

• Wrap each endpoint with a sampling call to profile. (E.g. with a Ring middleware).
• Your profile handler can accumulate (merge) pstats into a buffer.
• Every n minutes, drain the buffer and log endpoint performance to a db.
• Trigger alarms if any performance info (e.g. 95th percentile response times) are out of spec. The accumulated pstats info will also be helpful in quickly diagnosing a cause.

How's the performance in production?

Tufte's designed specifically to support ongoing use in production, and is highly optimized: its overhead is on the order of a couple nanoseconds per wrapping.

If something's remotely worth profiling, Tufte's overhead should be completely insignificant.

Also, keep in mind that Tufte's conditional profiling gives you complete control over if and when you do pay (however little) for profiling.

Why not just use YourKit, JProfiler, or VisualVM?

The traditional recommendation for Clojure profiling has usually been to use a standard JVM profiling tool like one of the above.

And they can certainly do the job, but they also tend to be a little hairy: requiring special effort to use, and often producing gobs of information that can be difficult or time-consuming to meaningfully interpret.

In contrast, Tufte offers some interesting benefits:

• A cross-platform API that works seamlessly between your server (Clj) and client (Cljs) applications
• Arbitrary application-aware, form-level profiling; measure [just] what you care about at the application level
• Simple thread-local or multi-threaded semantics
• During dev/debug: check performance right from within your REPL
• During production: ongoing, application-aware conditional profiling, logging, and analysis (stats are just Clojure maps)

Note that JVM profiling tools can still be very handy. Tufte doesn't offer memory profiling for example, and it's not well suited to forensic or very low-level profiling.

If you want to know clojure.lang.Numbers$LongOps.lt(Number, Number) or memory stats, you'll want a JVM tool. If you want to know my-fn stats, or you want ongoing stats in production - Tufte could be a good fit.

How does Tufte compare to the profiling in @ptaoussanis/Timbre?

Actually, I developed Tufte one weekend while refactoring Timbre's profiling. It's basically a refinement of the ideas from there.

Decided that I could make some worthwhile improvements with some breaking API changes and a new set of dedicated docs. Tufte's implementation is cross-platform, considerably faster, and its API more flexible.

With the release of Tufte, I'll be deprecating Timbre's profiling features.

Note that Tufte's a feature superset of Timbre's profiling, so porting should be straightforward:

API	Timbre	Tufte
p	[id & body]	[id & body], [opts & body]
profile	[level id & body]	[opts & body]
profiled	[level id & body]	[opts & body]
profile	Output -> log	Output -> arbitrary handler-fn [1]

[1] See tufte.timbre/add-timbre-logging-handler! for directing Tufte's profile output to Timbre.

How does Tufte compare to @hugoduncan/Criterium?

Basically, they serve different use cases: benchmarking for Criterium, and profiling for Tufte.

Benchmarking measures performance from the outside. Profiling measures performance from the inside (using some kind of instrumentation).

Essentially: benchmarking is about measuring how long something takes, while profiling is about measuring how long something takes, and understanding why.

Both can be used for performance measurement + comparsion, and both can be used for performance optimization. The main tradeoff is: profiling generally provides deeper information at the cost of increased setup effort (instrumentation).

Library	Measures	Use for	During	Emphasis
Criterium	1 Clojure form	Benchmarking	Dev	Accuracy
Tufte	>=1 Clojure/Script forms	Profiling, basic benchmarking	Dev, prod	Flexibility, speed

So Criterium produces very accurate stats for a single Clojure expression while Tufte produces combined stats for an arbitrary number of Clojure/Script expressions, possibly over time.

For example:

• Use Criterium for a one-off measurement or comparison of the performance of two libraries.
• Use Tufte to measure or monitor the performance of various parts of your system and how they relate.

What's the difference between thread-local and dynamic (multi-threaded) profiling?

If you don't already know the difference, you probably want thread-local profiling (the default). It's faster and conceptually simpler: it literally just profiles what happens sequentially on the current thread.

Work being done concurrently in futures and agents will be ignored.

In contrast, dynamic profiling works across thread boundaries using Clojure's standard ^:dynamic binding conveyance as in:

(def ^:dynamic *my-dynamic-var* nil)
(binding [*my-dynamic-var* "foobar!"] ; This val will be available across Clojure threads
  (future (println [:thread1 *my-dynamic-var*]))
  (future (println [:thread2 *my-dynamic-var*]))
  (println [:thread3 *my-dynamic-var*])
  (Thread/sleep 100))
  
;; %> "foobar!", "foobar!", "foobar!"

How do I get dynamic (multi-threaded) profiling?

profiled and profile have a :dynamic? option:

(profiled {:dynamic? true} ...) ; Activates dynamic (multi-threaded) profiling

This works through Clojure's standard ^:dynamic binding conveyance.

If you really want to get fancy, you can also do manual multi-threaded profiling using tufte/stats-accumulator.

What's the difference between Clock Time and Accounted Time?

This question refers to the values reported by the format-pstats util

Clock time is just the total real-world time that elapsed between the start and end of a profiled or profile call. This is the amount of time that you'd have seen pass on a stopwatch in your hand.

Accounted time is the total execution time tracked by all p forms during the same period. It can be:

Outcome	Meaning
(< accounted clock-time)	Some work was done that wasn't tracked by any p forms
(> accounted clock-time)	Nested p forms, and/or multi-threaded profiling[1]

[1] For example: if you're doing concurrent work on 6 threads, then you can do 6ms of work for each 1ms of clock time.

What if I want to time something across a promise / async handler / etc.?

A low-level util (capture-time!) is provided for this and similar use cases. See its docstring for more info.

Contacting me / contributions

Please use the project's GitHub issues page for all questions, ideas, etc. Pull requests welcome. See the project's GitHub contributors page for a list of contributors.

Otherwise, you can reach me at Taoensso.com. Happy hacking!

- Peter Taoussanis

License

Distributed under the EPL v1.0 (same as Clojure).
Copyright © 2016 Peter Taoussanis.