On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:26 AM, smur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:49:53 PM UTC+2, Roy Smith wrote:
Can you give us some more quantitative idea of your requirements? How
many objects? How much total data is being stored? How many queries
per second, and what is the
In article mailman.11202.1403534666.18130.python-l...@python.org,
William Ray Wing w...@mac.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:26 AM, smur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:49:53 PM UTC+2, Roy Smith wrote:
Can you give us some more quantitative idea of your requirements?
On 22/06/14 10:46, smur...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been doing this with a classic session-based SQLAlchemy ORM, approach,
but that ends up way too slow and memory intense, as each thread gets its own copy of
every object it needs. I don't want that.
If you don't want each thread to have their
Hi,
William Ray Wing:
Are you sure it won’t fit in memory? Default server memory configs these
days tend to start at 128 Gig, and scale to 256 or 384 Gig.
I am not going to buy a new server. I can justify writing a lot of custom
code for that kind of money.
Besides, the time to actually
memcache (or redis or ...) would be an option. However, I'm not going to go
through the network plus deserialization for every object, that'd be too slow -
thus I'd still need a local cache - which needs to be invalidated.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:54:38 PM UTC+2, Lie Ryan wrote:
If you don't want each thread to have their own copy of the object,
Don't use thread-scoped session. Use explicit scope instead.
How would that work when multiple threads traverse the in-memory object
structure and cause
On 23/06/14 19:05, smur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:54:38 PM UTC+2, Lie Ryan wrote:
If you don't want each thread to have their own copy of the object,
Don't use thread-scoped session. Use explicit scope instead.
How would that work when multiple threads traverse the
In article 85659fdd-511b-4aea-9c4b-17a4bbb88...@googlegroups.com,
smur...@gmail.com wrote:
My problem: I have a large database of interconnected objects which I need to
process with a combination of short- and long-lived workers. These objects
are mostly read-only (i.e. any of them can be
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:49:53 PM UTC+2, Roy Smith wrote:
Can you give us some more quantitative idea of your requirements? How
many objects? How much total data is being stored? How many queries
per second, and what is the acceptable latency for a query?
Not yet, A whole lot, More
