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
