I can't comment on the specifics of this issue, but I would like to mention that there is no roadmap for Django development in general. Oracle expertise is an area we struggle with compared to other backends, and all outside enthusiasm for improving the Oracle backend is gratefully received!
On 15 May 2015 at 02:02, Josh Smeaton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Can you provide links to the patches and discussion you're referring to? > It'll be easier to provide some feedback if we have the detail in front of > us. > > I'm all for improving performance for the Oracle backend - as long as > backwards compatibility or correctness doesn't suffer. If either of those > are concerns, perhaps we can find a way to overcome them. > > Cheers > > On Friday, 15 May 2015 08:24:10 UTC+10, Daniel Porter wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> I recently started working in the research wing of Moffitt Cancer Center, >> and our shop uses django for +10 in-house applications, running almost >> exclusively against oracle applications. Django has enabled building some >> great applications, but the performance is kind of terrible when run >> against an oracle backend. Asking on the cx_oracle list, Shai Berger told >> me it was probably due to the known problem where numbers get converted to >> strings and then back to numbers. Shai also pointed me to a patch he wrote >> that might mitigate it, which I haven't had time to work with but am >> optimistic about. >> >> Reading the thread he linked, it seemed like there was a decision not to >> make the fix - I'm hazy on the technical details, but I think it was >> because the fix required a loss of precision from an oracle-specific type >> of decimal field, and cx_oracle didn't allow a way to differentiate between >> this field type and other number types. I'm getting some free time towards >> the end of the month where I can dig more into the patch/explore causes >> more fully, but I wanted to ask here - has that decision been revisited, or >> does it stand? >> >> If Shai's patch improves performance, then I'm sure we can just keep our >> own, patched version of django. I would be stoked for there to be a main >> branch solution, though. >> >> Thanks! >> Daniel >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/951372c6-2780-45a1-9082-ae356bff193b%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/951372c6-2780-45a1-9082-ae356bff193b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMwjO1EasfEk9s9DhkHdxi9_pvQppYj8cXqn8zOFvugAmvD8oQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
