On 10/03/11 15:17 +0100, Bertrand Chenal wrote: > Le Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:31:04 +0100, > Cédric Krier <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > Another solution is to drop mptt and use a closure table[1], it > > > seems to generate far less queries to maintain the index. > > > > Less query but more rows so is it really faster? > > > > Probably yes, > (1) queries are expensive (each one add a round-trip to > Posqtgresql),
But the closures queries create much more records which cost also. > (2) when using closure table most of the work is made by > Postgresql and save work in python (and C code is several magnitude > quicker than python), I don't think it is the Python code of MPTT that is slow. > (3) it creates more data but they are not > transferred. With MPTT neither. Also I'm not sure there is a simple way to rebuild the closure table if corrupted with MPTT it is. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpyVc5waqkMJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
