On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Malthe Borch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 06:34, Iain Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I expect this project will be doing a *lot* of writes. IE, maybe even all > > hits do some minor mutation. On the other hand, I have a hunch that the > > architecture could wind up being really clean in zodb as it's going to > be a > > lot of object modelling (some non-realtime simulation related stuff) And > I > > think transactions will be important, it will be all screwed up if > there's > > any kind integrity jiggery pokery in the object model. > > The ZODB is not optimized for this use-case. There's a couple of > reasons for this: > > 1. You'll get B-tree conflicts that can't be resolved on the server. > 2. You'll need to load non-current object data too frequently, which > is expensive. > 3. There's a global commit lock (primarily to establish order) which > incurs some latency. > > You'll probable fare better with PostgreSQL because it's got knobs you > can tune and native support for concurrent B-trees. > Thanks Malte. I had been hoping that a pure object database would make the data modelling a lot simpler. Can you weigh in on how much the above issues would be a problem? Like is it so bad that I just abandon the idea and figure it out in SQLAlchemy, which I know well? thanks Iain > > \malthe > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
