On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 19:45, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> Having a SQL session storage module in the default
> distribution is a good learning example for other storage
> module authors. I don't see any necessity to remove this
> particular piece of code based on the assessment that it
> does not outperform simple file access on Linux. SQLite
It doesn't give you any benefit, that's my problem. People will use it
to replace files, when in fact its no good. Its a fine candidate for
PEAR or PECL, just like the postgresql session handler. As for a
reference implementation, I've written C session handlers before, and
files or MM are fine for reference implementations.
> could very well be faster on synchronous filesystems where
> creating new files is more expensive than in your testcase.
I highly doubt that, and besides, what percentage of php users use those
filesystems for sessions? Because session *creation* is not the issue
here. In real world usage, you would hope most of your time is not
spent creating sessions. Besides, on a synchronous filesystem, you'll
probably have a much larger disk sync overhead with sqlite (shown by the
benchmark where PRAGMA SET synchronous = ON was set).
-Sterling
>
> - Sascha
--
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out,
but that is not the reason we are doing it."
- Richard Feynman
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
