Why are you subscribed to the list then??  What is it about SQLObject that
makes you want the developers to speed it up?  I'm a nobody that uses
SQLObject for production work.  What are you looking for?  See below to
learn something.

Pronunciation: \ˈtakt\ Function:* noun*Etymology: French, sense of touch,
from Latin *tactus,* from *tangere* to touch — more at
tangent<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangent>Date:
17972 *:* a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good
relations with others or avoid offense


On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Stef Telford <s...@ummon.com> wrote:

> Hey Oleg, Everyone,
>    Please don't take this as 'rude' but, I think that the thing SQLObject
> development should -really- focus on is speed. Perhaps I am doing something
> fundamentally wrong with the following code but, for the life of me, I can't
> figure out why. I know your going to hate me saying this but.. compare the
> SQLObject vs SQLAlchemy
>
>
> Starting benchmarking with 100000 records (inserting and selecting)
> .
> Inserting 100000 records into SQLite(memory) with SQLAlchemy
> Number of records selected: 100000
>
> Time for SQLAlchemy with SQlite db in Memory: 2.71 seconds
>
> Inserting 100000 records into SQLite(Disk) with SQLAlchemy
> Number of records selected: 100000
> Time for SQLAlchemy with SQlite db on Disk: 2.64 seconds
>
>
> Versus
>
>
> Starting benchmarking with 100000 records (inserting and selecting)
> .
> Inserting 100000 records into SQLite(Memory) with SQLObject
> Number of records selected: 100000
> Time for SQLObject with db in memory: 38.53 seconds
>
> and when I change it to put the sqlite db onto the -exact- same disk as
> SQLAlchemy used
>
> Time for SQLObject with db on disk: 79.74 seconds
>
>
>
> So, that's roughly 20 times slower for memory, and 40 times slower for
> disk.
>
> As I said, if I am doing something wrong in the example programs, please do
> feel free to correct me, but, otherwise, the speed .. well .. 'sucks'. You
> may ask how 'likely' is 100k inserts, but the figures are even -worse- for
> object instantiation from a database .. I mean a LOT worse :( now, perhaps
> SQLObject does things like provide sqlmeta or .. some such.. but.. 20
> -times- slower is the trade off ? seems like a bad idea to me :\
>
> Ideas ? Thoughts ? Am I crazy ?
>
> Regards
> Stef
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
> is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals.
> Meet
> the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, &
> iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
> Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com
> _______________________________________________
> sqlobject-discuss mailing list
> sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & 
iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com 
_______________________________________________
sqlobject-discuss mailing list
sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss

Reply via email to