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:lalo@hackandroll.org pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar