On 02/18/2013 06:47 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Aymeric Augustin > <aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: >> The goal of my proposal is to save the cost (in response time) of >> establishing >> the database connection, in vanilla Django, without compromising reliability. >> I'm trying to help people who aren't even aware of the problem :) >> >> The implementation is quite straightforward: >> https://github.com/django/django/pull/733 >> >> Everything is controlled by a per-connection max-age setting. It can be set >> to a low value on rarely used connections, so they get closed quickly, and >> are re-opened only when necessary. > > +1 from me. > > The overhead of establishing a connection isn't a big deal when you > control your own hardware and can route traffic to the database over a > gigE backplane, but many of our users don't have that luxury. Routing > on AWS seems to be particularly crappy: most of my AWS-hosted sites > show a 75-100ms overhead just to establish a connection. That can be > as much as 90% of my response time! This fix represents a cheap and > easy performance improvement. Let's get it in.
+1 from me too. Similar experience on Heroku (which is of course also AWS), persistent DB connections via django-postgrespool were a quick and easy win to save a significant chunk of response time. I don't see any reason Django shouldn't do it by default, since many users won't even realize how much their response time is being hurt by the lack of it. Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
