[ZODB-Dev] Packless, Mountable FileStorage?

[Chris Withers]

Chris McDonough wrote:
> 
> Chris Withers wrote:
> >
> > for me, the big win with ZODB is it's "batteries included" stuff. If I need a
> > database to store the data then I might as well go for something like PostGres
> > or Oracle and be done with it.
> 
> Except that Postgres and Oracle are both pretty slow in comparison to
> bsddb.  OracleStorage, untuned, is about 30 times slower than
> FileStorage on the same hardware.  bssdbStorage on the other hand is
> about 2 times slower than FileStorage.  bsddb is also easier to develop
> for.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant I might as well not bother using ZODB and
just go for a relational model in the first place....

Which was kindof the other thing I was getting at. Surely a data structure tuned
to storing an object database would be better than trying to stuff object data
into a relational model? If it's going to end up in a relational model, then be
honest about it and let people build their own table structures optimised to
their application...

> > > Is there any clean way to mount different storages into ZODB?
> > > There were several approaches I've seen so far and none worked
> > > quite perfect.
> >
> > Indeed. I wonder if Chris M has anything to add here?
> 
> Not too much to add other than mounting is an area for improvement!
> ;-)

Sorry to seem cynical, but there seem to be lots of these 'areas for
improvement' right now with Zope-related stuff :-(

How does CST do it? Why is that bad? What storage does the RAM-based session
data container use?

Chris