On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Andrew Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 09:06 -0500, Tim Soderstrom wrote: >> On Apr 19, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Tim Soderstrom >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but would a transaction not be what >>>> you're asking for? >>>> >>>> BEGIN; >>>> UPDATE ... ; >>>> UPDATE ... ; >>>> ... >>>> COMMIT; >>> >>> Eh, no. That'd still be 10000 update statements. >> >> Yes, but the writes will occur in a single transaction when you COMMIT so it >> should be faster than doing isolated UPDATEs. Use a prepared statement if >> you want to get even more speed out of it (though I suspect any speed >> improvements may be sort of marginal, and that's assumption not bounded by >> any particular benchmarks I have done that show differences either way). > > Agreed, the parse/optimize time for 10000 key/value statements in a > transaction is almost unmeasurable in Drizzle. When you get into the > millions I think there is a small measurable overhead. > >>>> That is, if you wanted to have all those statements go through at the same >>>> time. I think if you wanted to improve speeds of updates, you may want to >>>> look at PBMS, the BLOB streaming stuff, which functions similar to >>>> HandlerSocket. I'm not sure if HandlerSocket can be built into Drizzle >>>> but, last I remember, PBMS is already there ready to go as a plugin. >>> >>> This isn't about blobs. How would PBMS help? >> >> It's a misnomer that PBMS handles just BLOBs. Like HandlerSocket, it can >> deal with pretty much any sort of data as far as I'm aware. Paul wrote a >> post about this: >> >> http://pbxt.blogspot.com/2010/12/handlersocket-why-did-out-version-did.html >> >> It's faster because you don't use the SQL optimizer, though I don't think >> you can do transactional updates with it. Still, if it's anything close to >> the speed of HandlerSocket, I would take a look at this since you're doing a >> bunch of key-value updates anyway (hence you don't need a SQL layer for >> those really). > > I was actually discussing NoSQL access with Brian at the Drizzle > Developer Day. I like his idea of using a memcached style access. The > apps I have written for companies use memcached anyway, so it would be > pretty trivial to convert these.
Oooh that would be actually very very cool! _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
