> Why wrap the stored object in a database? Thanks Matthew -- Our data is somewhat volatile but since our frozen objects can get pretty big, like others we're always looking for an all-around better "shared" solution for volatile data which is required during almost every session.
From what I've learned (mostly from the generous people on this list), our local mysql, Storable and other usages does a great job at meeting those needs. In reality, the ideal case would be if our data were non-changing and could simply be loaded at server start up. So, anything that emulates that non-lossy effect across multiple machines and changing data, comparable efficiency, and perhaps elimination of the freeze/thaw step altogether would be great. Bill On Monday 19 September 2005 06:10, Matthew Berk wrote: > Bill, > > I see that Peter's helped out here. Just a comment, though. Why wrap the > stored object in a database? I used to do this, but have elminated the > database completely. Instead, I used storable in combination with cdb for > persistence, and then build custom indexes on top of the data. Our data is > not volatile, so we optimixe for quick access. > > Matthew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Whillers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:43:09 > To:"mod_perl list" <modperl@perl.apache.org> > Subject: Storable Freeze/thaw - Size Limits - 65535 (?) > > When using Storable freeze/thaw to work with basic object (hash) storage > within a mysql db (blob column), I can't seem to get any more than 65535 > bytes stored. > > Since 65535 appears to be a "magic" number, I've been digging for where my > problem might reside (Storable, Perl, etc). but knowing many on this list > use Storable to do lots of cool things, can someone provide a clue? > > Any other comments are much appreciated. > > Thanks in advance, > Bill
