Thanks Iceberg - this makes some sense...

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Iceberg <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Thanks Yarko's insight on the topic of db performance domain.
>
> As to me, I brought up the issue only because I want to store sessions
> in RAM. In many cases sessions are not needed to be persistent on
> disk. Ram means maintenance free here, that way there is no need to
> delete old session files anymore. By the way, I personally plan to
> develop an desktop app which will be run on a CD, so the disk is not
> writable at all. Mmm, still a long way to reach that goal, but ram-
> based session will be the first milestone.
>
> So, if only sessions can be put in ram, that is ok for me. If an
> entire db can be fit into ram, that is better because session can be
> stored in this ram db by session.connect(...,db).
>
> On Apr14, 2:17am, Yarko Tymciurak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > temporary tables as a performance issue seem reasonable...
> > Solving database storage performance in web2py seems the _wrong_ place to
> do
> > this.
> >
> > Temporary tables (per-request) which help manage web2py's assumption that
> > everything is data-driven, that is so you can take advantage of forms,
> etc.
> >   seems like a good use of ram-based / "virtual" tables for per-request
> > situations where you want to have the full web2py API at your disposal
> > (validations, forms, etc).
> >
> > Temporary (ram-based) tables to address persistent data performance
> issues
> > should NOT be solved by web2py (if you find some _really compelling_
> reason
> > that there is some exceptional case where this makes sense, by all means
> > present your case!  but I don't see anything approaching that right
> now...)
> >
> > Data-presistence performance issues (that is, back end issues) should be
> the
> > domain of, and solved by the backend.  Some suggestions: Re-structure
> what
> > you are doing to avoid your specific situation (why are you creating
> _many_
> > temporary tables???);   select a deb backend that supports temporary
> tables
> > or other performance concerns that are specific to those you are
> > experiencing (Oracle and T-SQL, Postgres at least support temporary
> tables).
> >
> > IN this regard, it _might_ make sense to have DAL support a "as
> TEMPORARY"
> >  option for table definiton (as a hint - if the backend supports it, it
> will
> > use it, otherwise you just get a "normal" table).   I have no idea what
> the
> > various options and behaviors of temporary tables are, but this (at
> least)
> > would be in the right direction for web2py....
> >
> > I'm really not (at this point) for this particular proposal - I would
> much
> > prefer to see thinking around something more like:
> >
> > db.table_create('sometable', ......, migrate=Temporary)  # ?  or maybe a
> > separate keyword, but this _does_ seem like a kind of migration issue
> >
> > More discussion please!
> >
> > - Yarko
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"web2py Web Framework" 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/web2py?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to