On Jan 24, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Instead, I've been comparing ZEO+FileStorage with RelStorage
+PostgreSQL.
Makes sense, although I'm not sure how much. :)
In that light, my most recent graphs suggest that RelStorage wins
especially as you scale up. YMMV of course!
Ben
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote at 2008-1-23 17:15 -0500:
>On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Flavio Coelho wrote:
>> sorry, I never meant to email you personally
I have been wrong: Flavio has not forgotten the list, I had not looked
carefully enough. Sorry!
--
Dieter
Andreas Jung wrote:
Excellent. I re-tried my benchmarks of course. Copy&Paste of a complete
new Plone site is now nearly as fast as with Filestorage (just by
looking on my watch). The tests for commiting 100 objects are also
blazing fast: roughly 1.2 - 1.5 seconds for committing. That's roughly
--On 24. Januar 2008 11:21:28 -0400 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Andreas. No need to rely on rumors. The current source is available
here:
http://pgstorage.cvs.sourceforge.net/pgstorage/
Excellent. I re-tried my benchmarks of course. Copy&Paste of a complete new
Plone site
Hi Andreas. No need to rely on rumors. The current source is available here:
http://pgstorage.cvs.sourceforge.net/pgstorage/
Regards,
David
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 24. Januar 2008 15:42:01 +0100 Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2008 18:17:18 +0100 Andreas Jung <
--On 24. Januar 2008 15:42:01 +0100 Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2008 18:17:18 +0100 Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On 22. Januar 2008 21:17:45 -0500 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Dieter Maurer wrote:
"Orac
--On 23. Januar 2008 18:17:18 +0100 Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On 22. Januar 2008 21:17:45 -0500 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Dieter Maurer wrote:
"OracleStorage" was abandoned because it was almost an order
or magnitude slower than
Alan Runyan wrote at 2008-1-23 13:32 -0600:
> ...
>each record in a catalog may have an object for each index/metadata attribute
>you are capturing. and possibly a few others. Each catalog entries contain
>ts of object per object being indexed.That is my understanding.
It does not completely
Alan Runyan wrote at 2008-1-23 11:24 -0600:
> ...
>My understanding is
>the catalog is what makes storages a misery.
I do not think that this is true.
The catalog only often contains lots of objects -- and maybe some of
them with not so good persistency design.
>CMF/portal_catalog mounted as Fil
On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Flavio Coelho wrote:
BTW: stay on the list. I do not like personal emails.
sorry, I never meant to email you personally, this due to the
default configuration of this list, that sets the to the
poster instead of to the list...So I may have been too quick to the
On Jan 23, 2008 6:45 PM, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Flavio Coelho wrote at 2008-1-22 17:43 -0200:
> > ...
> >Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing monster" ;-)
>
> Jim has optimized pack consideraly (--> "zc.FileStorage").
>
> I, too, have worked on pack optimi
Flavio Coelho wrote at 2008-1-22 17:43 -0200:
> ...
>Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing monster" ;-)
Jim has optimized pack consideraly (--> "zc.FileStorage").
I, too, have worked on pack optimization the last few days (we
cannot yet use Jims work because we are using ZODB
--On 23. Januar 2008 13:32:29 -0600 Alan Runyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Likely but I don#t know how to setup my instance in order to make the
copied instance making use of mounted catalog.
What about creating a Plone site with a FileStorage.
Then mount a subfolder into PGStorage say
/Plon
> Likely but I don#t know how to setup my instance in order to make the
> copied instance making use of mounted catalog.
What about creating a Plone site with a FileStorage.
Then mount a subfolder into PGStorage say
/Plone/some_folder
then you could see create af older /Plone/new_folder and dump
--On 23. Januar 2008 11:24:28 -0600 Alan Runyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas,
Could you try to mount the catalog separately? My understanding is
the catalog is what makes storages a misery.
Likely but I don#t know how to setup my instance in order to make the
copied instance making
Graphical test comparison (open office format)
http://pgstorage.cvs.sourceforge.net/pgstorage/PGStorage/tests/comparison.ods
Regards,
David
Alan Runyan wrote:
Andreas,
Could you try to mount the catalog separately? My understanding is
the catalog is what makes storages a misery.
CMF/portal_c
Andreas,
Could you try to mount the catalog separately? My understanding is
the catalog is what makes storages a misery.
CMF/portal_catalog mounted as Filestorage
and CMF could be mounted as PGStorage.
I presume you would see much more reasonable performance?
cheers
--
Alan Runyan
Enfold Sys
--On 22. Januar 2008 21:17:45 -0500 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Dieter Maurer wrote:
"OracleStorage" was abandoned because it was almost an order
or magnitude slower than "FileStorage".
Actually, Lovely Systems uses PGStorage because it is faster
Cool.
Jim Fulton wrote:
Berkeley DB storage didnt' work out the first time around. My
experience optimizing packing for FileStorage reminded me how much I
want an alternative to FileStorage for large active databases. I intend
to revisit Berkeley DB storage one of these days.
__
On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Benji York wrote:
Flavio Coelho wrote:
Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing
monster" ;-)
Jim has done a great deal of work on packing (that will go into 3.9
I presume)
and is available now in zc.FileStorage.
that should make your pack
On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Alan Runyan wrote:
Jim,
What would you consider a "large active database"?
I don't have specific metrics. Generally databases who's daily growth
is measured in Gigabytes and who's size is significantly reduced by
packing is what I have in mind.
Jim
--
Ji
Flavio Coelho wrote:
Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing monster" ;-)
Jim has done a great deal of work on packing (that will go into 3.9 I
presume) that should make your pack 3 to 6 times faster (depending on if
you do garbage collection at pack time or not).
I want
Jim,
What would you consider a "large active database"?
curiously,
alan
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
On Jan 22, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:43:42PM -0200, Flavio Coelho wrote:
Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing
monster" ;-)
I want to be able to use an OO database without the inconvenience
of having
it growing out of control
Thats a good thing to know, I will do some testing of my own...
Thanks
Flávio
On Jan 23, 2008 2:36 AM, David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, Shane had done some benchmarking about a year or so ago. PGStorage
> was actually faster with small writes but slower for larger ones. As far
> as
Then perhaps I should rephrase my question:
Is there a way, by means of configuration, to reduce the size of history to
reduce the cost of packing?
thanks,
Flávio
On Jan 22, 2008 11:44 PM, Marius Gedminas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:43:42PM -0200, Flavio Coelho wrot
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, David Pratt wrote:
> BTW Stephan, where is Lovely using
> it - a site example? I had read some time ago that they were exploring
> it but not that it was being used.
I think they are using it for video.vol.at, but you should contact them
making sure they actually use
Yes, Shane had done some benchmarking about a year or so ago. PGStorage
was actually faster with small writes but slower for larger ones. As far
as packing, as a zodb implementation, packing is still required to
reduce the size of data in Postgres. BTW Stephan, where is Lovely using
it - a site
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> "OracleStorage" was abandoned because it was almost an order
> or magnitude slower than "FileStorage".
Actually, Lovely Systems uses PGStorage because it is faster for them.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development an
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:43:42PM -0200, Flavio Coelho wrote:
> Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing monster" ;-)
>
> I want to be able to use an OO database without the inconvenience of having
> it growing out of control and then having to spend hours packing the
> database
Thanks Dieter,
Actually what I am trying to run away from is the "packing monster" ;-)
I want to be able to use an OO database without the inconvenience of having
it growing out of control and then having to spend hours packing the
database every once in a while. (I do a lot of writes in my DBs).
Flavio Coelho wrote at 2008-1-22 10:57 -0200:
> ...
>Can anyone tell me if PGstorage is stable enough for production use?
I expect that it will behave similar to "OracleStorage".
"OracleStorage" was abandoned because it was almost an order
or magnitude slower than "FileStorage".
Carefully think
Hi,
Can anyone tell me if PGstorage is stable enough for production use?
thanks,
--
Flávio Codeço Coelho
"My grandfather once told me that there were two kinds of people: those who
do the work and those who take the credit. He tol
33 matches
Mail list logo
