On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 16:37 -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Roché Compaan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot> Transaction detail for txn #00099 > (first document): > > > > Txn id,Classname,Object count,Size (bytes) > > #00099,BTrees._IIBTree.IIBTree,3,286 > > #00099,OFS.Folder.Folder,1,55 > > #00099,BTrees._IOBTree.IOBucket,9,4572 > > #00099,BTrees._OIBTree.OIBucket,5,2964 > > #00099,BTrees._IOBTree.IOBTree,39,17552 > > #00099,BTrees.Length.Length,27,768 > > #00099,Persistence.mapping.PersistentMapping,2,846 > > #00099,Products.ATContentTypes.content.document.ATDocument,1,1544 > > #00099,BTrees._OOBTree.OOBTree,20,3986 > > #00099,BTrees._IIBTree.IISet,3,184 > > #00099,BTrees._OIBTree.OIBTree,9,1404 > > #00099,Products.Archetypes.BaseUnit.BaseUnit,3,767 > > #00099,BTrees._OOBTree.OOBucket,2,3286 > > #00099,BTrees._IIBTree.IITreeSet,55,3905 > > > > ?Transaction detail for txn #10099 (last document): > > > > Txn id,Classname,Object count,Size (bytes) > > #10099,BTrees._IIBTree.IIBTree,8,2517 > > #10099,OFS.Folder.Folder,1,55 > > #10099,BTrees._IOBTree.IOBucket,57,81564 > > #10099,BTrees._OIBTree.OIBucket,13,9872 > > #10099,BTrees._IIBTree.IIBucket,29,20024 > > #10099,BTrees._IOBTree.IOBTree,1,85 > > #10099,Persistence.mapping.PersistentMapping,2,846 > > #10099,BTrees.Length.Length,22,655 > > #10099,Products.ATContentTypes.content.document.ATDocument,1,1544 > > #10099,BTrees._OOBTree.OOBTree,6,30455 > > #10099,BTrees._IIBTree.IISet,65,182708 > > #10099,Products.Archetypes.BaseUnit.BaseUnit,3,767 > > #10099,BTrees._OOBTree.OOBucket,16,8088 > > #10099,BTrees._IIBTree.IITreeSet,2,122 > > It's pretty clear that the difference here is the IISet(65 vs 3) and > the IOBucket(57 vs 9). The rest looks pretty much stable. Now, if I > understand correctly that means the last document caused 57 IOBuckets > to be modified, but not necessarily created.
Right. But even looking at the very first transaction the indexing overhead is visible: 3 Kbytes of data related to the document (ATDoc, BaseUnit, PersistentMapping) is only a fraction of the total transaction size of 40 Kbytes. > I wonder if you used QueueCatalog, and if don't, what would it look > like if you did. > I didn't use QueueCatalog, but if I did, I don't think it would have made any difference in the size of the objects since the only difference is that indexing is delayed. It could however make a big difference in the total size of the Data.fs in that fewer revisions of set and bucket instances would be persisted. -- Roché Compaan Upfront Systems http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za _______________________________________________ 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
