Andreas Jung wrote:
Excellent. I re-tried my benchmarks of course. Copy&Paste of a complete
new Plone site is now nearly as fast as with Filestorage (just by
looking on my watch). The tests for commiting 100 objects are also
blazing fast: roughly 1.2 - 1.5 seconds for committing. That's roughly
10x faster than with PGStorage 0.1 and about 2-3 slower than
Filestorage...not that bad. So
PGStorage appears as an interesting alternative.
I just noticed this thread. Interesting timing! :-)
Jarn (formerly Plone Solutions) is now funding development of PGStorage
into a new storage that interfaces with either Oracle or PostgreSQL.
The new storage is called RelStorage and they have agreed to make it
I've been plugging away at it for a while and just last night I got
Oracle 10g XE to pass the ZODB tests. It was no small feat (it involved
rewriting the packing algorithm) and to achieve it I had to temporarily
break the PostgreSQL support. As soon as I get PostgreSQL operation
back in order, I intend to post the code on svn.zope.org.
As for benchmarks, I've decided it's not really fair to compare
FileStorage with RelStorage/PGStorage, since RelStorage provides
functionality comparable with ZEO and ZRS. For small, single-server
sites, FileStorage is going to continue to be the performance leader,
because it doesn't have to use the network stack and simply has less
work to do.
Instead, I've been comparing ZEO+FileStorage with RelStorage+PostgreSQL.
In that light, my most recent graphs suggest that RelStorage wins
especially as you scale up. YMMV of course! Even if RelStorage wins,
I'm sure Jim won't stay still. I bet a lot more performance could be
squeezed out of ZEO and ZRS.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org