James Bennett wrote: > On 8/22/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SA provides: > > * connection pooling - since you asked about it, I'll quote from the SA > > docs: > > This is why I said "what comes to mind when I think 'database > connection pooling' isn't something I think belongs in Django." > > Maintaining in-process connection pools in the framework doesn't, in > my experience, provide enough benefit to justify the hassle. I'd > rather talk to something like pg_pool which maintains an external > connection pool.
I think the problem here is competing definitions of the term 'connection pool'. You're using 'connection pool' to mean a connection that may be transparently directed to one of N databases (say where records 1-1000000 are on database machine A and 1000001-200000 are on database machine B, or you're writing to A and reading from A and B), I think. And I think that Karl and Christopher are using 'connection pool' to mean a collection of N persistent connections to the SAME database, where threads in a web app can check out and use connections from the pool, so that each thread need not make and hold its own connection. So I agree, django's ORM doesn't need pools (definition 1), but it does need pools (definition 2) to help it scale better in some environments and to reduce request startup time. Hopefully the words I've put in your mouths are the right ones. :) JP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
