On 06/06/2012 07:49 AM, Andi wrote:
just a benchmark, but better than nothing. found that during our
research.
http://blog.curiasolutions.com/the-great-web-framework-shootout/
andi
(sent right out of my head)
The Curiasolutions shootout is interesting. However, even for a
synthetic benchmark it is highly unbalanced. For example, it shows
Pyramid yielding more rps than Bottle on Hello World. But then throws
Pyramid way lower than Bottle on templated db task.
If you take a look at the benchmark code, you'll notice:
- both use SQLite with a local file db, which is ok
- Bottle uses SQLite driver directly
- Pyramid uses SQLAlchemy which incurs significant overhead
You can use database drivers directly in Pyramid. You don't need
sqlalchemy, or transaction extensions, they are not required by Pyramid,
just a chosen default. You can also use SQLAlchemy in Bottle. You can
use whatever template engine, or none, in Pyramid, and Bottle.
The bottom line is Pyramid is not a full stack framework like Django,
and that means you can swap out default components for whatever you
want, just like you can add components to a microframework. The raw
speed of a Pyramid app then really depends on the choice of components
and app design. The framework overhead becomes insignificant.
That said, I'd totally trust Pyramid to power my next zettascale
Facebook killer. ;)
--
.oO V Oo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
