Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Kai Diefenbach wrote: > > > Stefan H. Holek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Counting in the ZODB is more or less a no-go. You will get write > >> conflicts, and your ZODB will grow (too) quickly. > > I kind of doubt that updating a little counter will make the database > grow "too" quickly, but that might depend on how often the counter > was updated and how you defined "too". :)
I didn't want to answer to Stefan before I tested this again. The first time I tested I remember that I didn't consider the growing of the db as to much. > An issue with current ZODB storage implementations is that they > require explicit packing to remove old revisions and, in the case of > the file storage implementation, packing is rather expensive. (I > think the FileStorage pack implementation could be improved quite a > bit in this regard.) If you have a very busy counter, you might have > to pack more often then you otherwise would. I see. > > But what's an alternative? > > That depends on the underlying use case. If you want to track > traffic, there's always log analysis. :) As I think about that, this could be true for more uses cases as one might believe :-) Thanks Kai -- Kai Diefenbach - http://diefenba.ch iqplusplus - http://iqpp.de _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
