On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Amitay Dobo wrote:
> So to sum up: I vote up connection pooling. Where do I sign up?
Thread hijacking. Thanks, always appreciated.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> By the way, I switched my connections from TCP to a Unix socket with
> local authentication and it dropped to 5-10ms. (I suspect it was
If you're using a connection pooler, you don't want to disconnect and
reconnect from
n worse side effects (see: "spinning up a server
> process ties up a DB handle for as long as the process lives?") and
> could quite realistically cause resource starvation.
8-16 connections from the 8-16 backend threads I'm starting are going
to swamp Postgresq
lts in 0 sales, which plainly makes no sense.
I suspect the actual formula is something like pow(0.9,
(seconds_latency / 0.050)); in other words, 500ms latency would imply
34.8% as many sales. That's pretty believable.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Y
mit anything but bug reports right now with the
tracker so (understandably) backlogged from the release freeze. So
relax, I'm not jumping head-first into this.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
nnect docstring
(site:http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/ "The registered receiver to
disconnect." - did not match any documents).
It seems intended to be public, but I can only find disconnect
mentioned in 1.0-porting-guide (site:http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/
signal discon
like
not being able to use "local" authentication in Postgres); just to
eliminate needless database reconnections.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users&q
ulting in people
needing to use configurations much more complicated than necessary.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-u
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Carlos A. Carnero
Delgado wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> Why is each thread's database connection closed after each request?
>
> I believe that this is related to Django's shared-nothing-by-defaul
for this in Django 1.1 that I just
> haven't found yet?
I'd like to know this, too. It'd be an excellent way to execute
complex SQL without having to drop out of the ORM entirely: hide the
logic in a function, giving it a simple interface that the ORM ca
s, that's
still spending 25% of the time for the request on something that
shouldn't be necessary at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
T
TimeField needs tzinfo support, too. As long as
TIME_ZONE and the tzinfo of times passed to queries are the same it
should work fine, which is all I need.
--
Glenn Maynard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
On Jan 27, 2:50 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> > I don't care if it takes more than one line, though there is, in
> > fact :), a big difference between taking more than one line and having
> > to bypass the public API.
>
> Only semantically, when you're trying to access something like "group
> b
On Jan 26, 11:42 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> That's because it doesn't exist. Django isn't meant to completely
> replace the need for SQL, for a start.
I was assuming it was possible because the extra() API already seems
to try to avoid forcing people to drop out of the ORM entirely for
case
On Jan 26, 10:20 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I'm a little bit confused as to what you think is happening here -
> what do you mean by "other than a simple column"? The default
> aggregate grouping is effectively by object instance; the
> implementation means that every non-aggregate field on
How are aggregates grouped on anything other than a simple column?
db/sql/query.py set_group_by suggests that this might work, to (for
example) group together dollar amounts:
Table.objects.extra(select={"dollars": "cents/100"}).values
("dollars").aggregate(...)
That doesn't throw an error (it d
16 matches
Mail list logo
