29 Nov
2001
29 Nov
'01
9:50 a.m.
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
than the factor of 100 your numbers showed for you data! I would not make the blanket assertion that Berkeley storage is 100 times slower than FileStorage.
Sorry, let me clarify as well, I only meant in the context of searching and indexing...
Let me just reiterate: it's vitally important to tune your Berkeley storage for your system and application, especially with regards to cachesize. E.g. Getting the cachesize wrong can definitely destroy your performance, maybe producing numbers as bad as you're seeing. I won't claim that Berkeley DB is easy to tune, though.
Indeed... and I've spent a while twiddling cache sizes to no avail ;-) cheers, Chris