Jim Gallacher wrote:
Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't
know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for
DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass?
Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the standard python
distribution as
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't
know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for
DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass?
Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the standard python
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I
don't know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by
default for DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass?
Starting with Python 2.3 this
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
As for the MySQL implementation
I'd stay away from anything vendor-specific in mod_python, because then
the question becomes why not a postresql, why not oracle, etc.
Grisha
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I was thinking we'd still use the current global locking scheme, but
keep the file open between requests. Not sure if this would be robust
or just asking for dbm file corruption though.
I'm pretty sure it won't
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Any objection to just a SqlSession base class?
May be - it depends on how complex it becomes. Any attempts I've to
generalize SQL/DB stuff tend to become a mess since there are no firm
standards in this area,
2005/6/17, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
ext2/ext3 uses a linked list to access
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
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.
Already done - it's just a couple of extra lines. Doing some testing today.
Are you replacing FS with FS2 or adding a new
Jim Gallacher wrote:
It just occured to me that the performance problem may be related to
opening and closing the dbm file for every record insertion. Adjusting
the test so that the file is only opened once, I get O(1), and a great
speed boost: 0.2 seconds / per 1000 records all the way up to
