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.


Hi y'all,

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 open source!

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.

Shane

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to