Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi Jim,
You've done a pretty impressive work here. What surprises me is the
O(n) behaviour on DBM and FS. This seems to mean that indexes (or
indices, if you prefer) ar not used.
For DBM, well, if BDB could not handle indexes, this would be big
news. Are you 100% sure that the Berkeley implementation is used ?
For FS, I don't know about ext3, but in ReiserFS or the Win NT
filesystem, there are indexes that should speed up file lookups, and
should certainly not yield a O(n) performance. Anyway, implementing
FS2 instead of FS is not that difficult, and if it yields predictable
results even on ext3, then we should go for it.
As for the MySQL implementation, well, I've been promising it many
times, but I can provide a connection pool implementation that could
speed up applicative code as well as your session management code.
What I would need to do is to make it mod_python friendly, i.e. make
it configurable through PythonOption directives. Do you think it would
be a good idea to integrate it into mod_python ?
Regards,
Nicolas
I don't know how it could be made good performance-wise, but it would be
great to have a generic database session store that you could pass a
Python DB-API connection object to. Of course, that would be difficult
to configure in the same way as the other session objects, but lots of
apps have already got a database connection open...
David
