On 6 Lug, 14:03, akaariai <akaar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:54 pm, drakkan <drakkan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > so play is outperforming django! obviously django is not in debug mode > > ecc..., is there something wrong in my test setup (I already tried to > > adjust the uwsgi launch line I tryed more process or 1 process with > > threads ecc with no relevant improvement) or django/python is simply > > much slower than java? I tried to run play behind nginx proxy too: the > > results are pratically identical. Note the response time too: the > > slowest play response is 47 ms, the fastest django one is 110 ms, > > > any suggestion to improve performance is appreciated, > > Which database do you use? If you happen to use PostgreSQL, then > connection creation can be a major source of your performance > problems. In that case, try using pgbouncer or PgPoolII. Play would > most likely use a connection pool by default, while Django relies on > external connection pooling. > > I have an application which does a lot more than 3 queries. With > connection pooling enabled: > Requests per second: 90.69 [#/sec] (mean) > > Without connection pooling: > Requests per second: 32.98 [#/sec] (mean) >
using pgpool I get a 2,5x performance improvement thanks! I'll try on intel atom again to see if there I have more improvements > - Anssi > > - Anssi -- 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.
