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".

          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]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to