On 6 Lug, 12:46, Thomas Guettler <h...@tbz-pariv.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I would choose the framework, that you like. You can optimize later. And > this would be the same for all frameworks: You need a good cache strategy. > > Are you expecting several hundred requests per minute? > > I guess there is something wrong with your benchmark. I don't think > django/python > is much slower.
I need to develop a web app that need to run on low end hw (probably intel atom, not decided yet). I love django/python and I already used it in several web apps and I would like to use it in this project too. However it seems that the performance difference between play/java and django/python grow when the hw resource decrease. For example on a 8 core server play is "only" 2-2.5x faster that django (no one will notice this difference if you don't have a very high traffic website), on an intel atom play is 15x faster than django and this is noticeable. I know about caching and play support memcached too, I guess if I enable memcached on both framework the results doesn't change much, thanks for your suggestions > > Thomas > > On 06.07.2011 01:31, drakkan wrote: > > > Hi, > > > thanks for your comments, I installed django-debug toolbar and I can > > confirm I'm doing similar queries from both django and play. The query > > I do with hibernate in play should be slower since I'm doing a left > > outer join while django do an inner join, since the field on which I > > join cannot be null. > > -- > Thomas Guettler,http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ > E-Mail: guettli (*) thomas-guettler + de -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
