#29994: Document performance issues in FileBasedCache
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: Mateusz Konieczny | Owner: nobody
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Documentation | Version: 2.1
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Comment (by Grant Jenks):
I looked at the patch in #11260 but as far as I can tell it only adds a
scenario where when `_max_enries` is set to 0 or None then no culling ever
takes place. I'm not sure how `anteater_sa` handles cache size in that
case. I suppose if you can guarantee that the filesystem cache will never
grow beyond a certain size then that's a reasonable strategy. It's more of
a persistent dictionary though.
I certainly think filesystem caching has serious use cases. I myself have
used diskcache for an ecommerce site for several years with tens of
thousands of pages. I started with the built-in file-based cached but
later chose sqlite3 (used by diskcache) for better performance.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29994#comment:6>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/068.fdac598b160cdb4f5ae144bbadaf5a5f%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
