Stories with Tag workflow management

• Show HN: Hatchet v1 – A task orchestration platform built on Postgres

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-03 17:17:54

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hatchet v1 is a new open-source task orchestration platform built on top of Postgres. It aims to provide a reliable and scalable way to define, execute, and manage complex workflows, leveraging the robustness and transactional guarantees of Postgres as its backend. Hatchet uses SQL for defining workflows and Python for task logic, allowing developers to manage their orchestration entirely within their existing Postgres infrastructure. This eliminates the need for external dependencies like Redis or RabbitMQ, simplifying deployment and maintenance. The project is designed with an emphasis on observability and debuggability, featuring a built-in web UI and integration with logging and monitoring tools.

  The open-source project, Hatchet v1, introduces a novel approach to task orchestration by leveraging PostgreSQL as its foundational database. Instead of relying on external message queues or specialized workflow engines, Hatchet utilizes Postgres's robust features, including ACID transactions, row-level locking, and the LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism, to manage and execute complex workflows. This design choice aims to simplify deployment and maintenance by consolidating the orchestration logic within a single, familiar database system.

  Hatchet's core functionality revolves around defining and executing Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) of tasks. These tasks, represented as rows within dedicated Postgres tables, are interconnected to define dependencies and execution order. The platform provides a Python API for constructing these DAGs programmatically, specifying task dependencies, and defining the code to be executed for each task. Leveraging Postgres's transactional capabilities, Hatchet ensures data consistency and reliability throughout the workflow execution. The system manages task scheduling, execution, and state tracking, automatically handling retries and failures according to user-defined policies.

  The reliance on Postgres offers several key advantages. It eliminates the need for separate message queues like RabbitMQ or Kafka, streamlining the infrastructure and reducing operational complexity. Furthermore, it capitalizes on Postgres's inherent reliability and scalability, offering a robust foundation for mission-critical workflows. Using SQL, users can directly query the database to gain insights into workflow execution, task status, and historical performance data. This facilitates monitoring, debugging, and analysis of complex orchestration processes. The developers emphasize that Hatchet is particularly well-suited for scenarios where existing Postgres infrastructure is already in place, allowing for seamless integration and reduced overhead. The project is currently in its initial release (v1) and actively seeking community feedback and contributions. The provided code examples and documentation demonstrate the basic usage and key features of Hatchet, guiding developers on how to integrate it into their own projects.

  • task orchestration
  • workflow management
  • Postgres
  • PostgreSQL
  • Database
  • Open Source
  • hatchet
  • Python
  • task runner
  • job scheduler
  • distributed systems
  • scalability

  Summary of Comments ( 51 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43572733

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed Hatchet's reliance on Postgres for task orchestration, expressing both interest and skepticism. Some praised the simplicity and the clever use of Postgres features like LISTEN/NOTIFY for real-time updates. Others questioned the scalability and performance compared to dedicated workflow engines like Temporal or Airflow, particularly for complex workflows and high throughput. Several comments focused on the potential limitations of using SQL for defining workflows, contrasting it with the flexibility of code-based approaches. The maintainability and debuggability of SQL-based workflows were also raised as potential concerns. Finally, some commenters appreciated the transparency of the architecture and the potential for easier integration with existing Postgres-based systems.

  The Hacker News post for Hatchet v1 has a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the project. Several commenters express interest and approval for the approach of using Postgres as the foundation for a task orchestration platform.

  One compelling line of discussion revolves around the comparison between Hatchet and Temporal. Commenters debate the advantages and disadvantages of each, with some suggesting that Hatchet's simplicity and reliance on Postgres could be beneficial for certain use cases, while others point to Temporal's more mature feature set and scalability. The creator of Hatchet also participates in this discussion, acknowledging the differences and explaining their rationale for focusing on Postgres.

  Another key comment thread focuses on the perceived limitations of using Postgres for this type of workload. Concerns are raised about the potential performance bottlenecks and scaling challenges that might arise as the number of tasks and workflows increases. Commenters discuss strategies for mitigating these issues, such as using a separate Postgres instance dedicated to Hatchet.

  Further comments delve into specific features and aspects of Hatchet's design, including its use of SQL for defining workflows, the choice of Python for the client library, and the potential for integrating with other tools and services. Some commenters inquire about the roadmap for future development, expressing interest in features like retry mechanisms and error handling. The project creator responds to many of these inquiries, providing further context and insights into their design choices and plans for the future.

  Finally, a few comments touch on the broader topic of task orchestration and the landscape of existing solutions. Commenters mention alternative tools and frameworks, and discuss the challenges of choosing the right tool for different use cases.

• Data Branching for Batch Job Systems

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-22 10:37:04

  Verbose tl;dr

  Isaac Jordan's blog post introduces "data branching," a technique for optimizing batch job systems, particularly those involving large datasets and complex dependencies. Data branching creates a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where nodes represent data transformations and edges represent data dependencies. Instead of processing the entire dataset through each transformation sequentially, data branching allows for parallel processing of independent branches. When a branch's output needs to be merged back into the main pipeline, a merge node combines the branched data with the main data stream. This approach minimizes unnecessary processing by only applying transformations to relevant subsets of the data, resulting in significant performance improvements for specific workloads while retaining the simplicity and familiarity of traditional batch job systems.

  Isaac Jordan's blog post, "Data Branching for Batch Job Systems," explores a novel approach to managing data dependencies within complex batch job workflows. He identifies a common challenge in these systems: the need to execute numerous variations of the same job with slightly altered input data, often derived from a shared base dataset. Traditional approaches, such as manually creating and managing copies of the base data for each variation, quickly become cumbersome and inefficient, especially as the number of variations grows. This leads to storage bloat, increased complexity in managing data lineage, and slower iteration cycles.

  Jordan proposes a "data branching" paradigm as a solution. This method draws inspiration from version control systems like Git, leveraging the concept of branching to efficiently manage data variations. Instead of creating full copies of the dataset for each job variant, data branching allows for the creation of lightweight "branches" that represent only the differences or deltas from the base dataset. These branches inherit the majority of their data from the base dataset and only store the unique modifications specific to that particular job variation. This dramatically reduces storage overhead compared to full copies, especially when the variations are relatively minor.

  The blog post delves into the technical implementation details of data branching. It discusses how data branches can be represented, potentially using specialized data structures or file formats optimized for storing and applying deltas. It touches on the need for efficient merging and conflict resolution mechanisms, similar to those found in Git, to handle scenarios where multiple branches modify the same underlying data. The post also explores how data branching can integrate with existing batch job scheduling systems, emphasizing the importance of clear lineage tracking and provenance information to ensure reproducibility and facilitate debugging.

  Furthermore, the post highlights the potential benefits of data branching. Besides significant storage savings, it enables faster job execution by eliminating the need to copy large datasets. This also simplifies data management, reduces complexity, and promotes better organization of data variations. The post argues that this approach can significantly improve the efficiency and scalability of batch job systems, particularly in data-intensive applications like machine learning model training and scientific simulations where numerous experiments with slightly varied input data are common.

  Finally, while acknowledging that the implementation of data branching can present certain challenges, such as the development of efficient diffing and patching algorithms for various data formats, the author believes that the potential advantages outweigh the complexities. The post concludes by suggesting future research directions, including exploring different data branching strategies and developing tools and frameworks to facilitate the adoption of this paradigm in real-world batch processing systems.

  • data branching
  • batch jobs
  • job scheduling
  • parallel processing
  • data pipelines
  • workflow management
  • distributed systems
  • data management
  • scalability
  • performance
  • optimization
  • big data
  • Cloud Computing
  • data processing

  Summary of Comments ( 1 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42791310

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the practicality and complexity of the proposed data branching system. Some questioned the performance implications, particularly the cost of copying potentially large datasets, suggesting alternatives like symbolic links or copy-on-write mechanisms. Others pointed out the existing solutions like DVC (Data Version Control) that offer similar functionality. The need for careful garbage collection to manage the branched data was also highlighted, with concerns about the potential for runaway storage costs. Several commenters found the core idea intriguing but expressed reservations about its implementation complexity and the potential for debugging challenges in complex workflows. There was also a discussion around alternative approaches, such as using a database designed for versioned data, and the potential for applying these concepts to configuration management.

  The Hacker News post titled "Data Branching for Batch Job Systems" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42791310) has generated several interesting comments discussing the proposed "data branching" concept for managing data dependencies in batch processing systems.

  One commenter highlights the similarity between the proposed approach and existing version control systems like Git, suggesting that the author might be reinventing the wheel. They acknowledge the potential benefits of specializing a system for data, but question whether the complexity introduced outweighs the advantages over leveraging mature, readily available tools. They also point out the operational overhead of maintaining and managing such a specialized system.

  Another comment focuses on the practical challenges of implementing such a system, specifically regarding storage. They question how data deduplication would work in practice and express concern about the potential storage explosion that could result from frequent branching and merging operations, particularly with large datasets. They inquire about the author's thoughts on storage strategies and how to mitigate this potential issue.

  A different commenter draws a parallel between the proposed data branching concept and functional programming paradigms, particularly persistent data structures. They suggest that the underlying principles of immutability and data transformations align well with the goals of data branching. This comment reframes the discussion in a theoretical context, connecting it to established concepts in computer science.

  One commenter brings up the trade-off between flexibility and performance. While acknowledging the benefits of data branching for experimentation and reproducibility, they express concern that it could introduce performance bottlenecks, especially in high-throughput batch processing systems. They inquire about the performance characteristics of the proposed system and whether it has been benchmarked against traditional approaches.

  Finally, a comment expresses skepticism about the practicality of implementing the concept in real-world scenarios. They suggest that the complexities of managing data dependencies, ensuring data consistency, and handling potential conflicts could make the system difficult to maintain and use effectively, particularly in large and complex data pipelines. They propose exploring simpler alternatives and focusing on more incremental improvements to existing batch processing systems.

  These comments collectively raise important questions about the feasibility, practicality, and potential benefits of the proposed data branching system. They highlight the need for further exploration of storage strategies, performance considerations, and the trade-offs between flexibility and complexity.