On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
> > FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
>
> Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
> than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow too but the slowness is somewhat
> negated by caching.
Chris, that's only true for small databases. At about 100M of
Data.fs, OracleStorage starts being faster. It depends on
hardware too. We made some benchmarks on a major Brazilian
portal, and well, it's currently running OracleStorage.
Anyway, I said "inefficient", not "slow".
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org )
The biggest site for whatever-it-is-that-we-are.
http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp
Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
