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 :-)

Kai Diefenbach - http://diefenba.ch
iqplusplus - http://iqpp.de

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to