On 04/09/14 Benjamin Scherrey said:
> The short answer to your question is no, the Django ORM is not inherently
> slower in that regard and it's very likely something you're doing. The
Given that it's basically
for obj in foo.objects.all():
obj.prop = new_value
obj.save()
I fail to see
On 03/09/14 Tom Lockhart said:
> I haven't had to deal with this myself, but the speed difference smacks of
> transactional issues. If you can run your loop by wrapping all of it or
> pieces of it (say, 100 or 1000 chunks) in a single transaction you'll
> probably see some significant speedup.
Ye
On 04/09/14 Tom Evans said:
> Is the update invariant? By using the ORM like this:
As I said, each update is unique and they cannot be batched.
> Are both Django and the sqlalchemy doing the same sort of update?
Yes. Identical.
Mike
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:22 AM, msoulier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at Django's performance with respect to modifying large numbers
> of objects, each in a unique way that cannot be batched. If I make a simple
> change to one of my Django models and save(), and then do the same thing in
> sqla
Thanks to the OP for asking this, and to all who answered. Ben, special
stars to you - you just shared some very valuable insight into efficieint
use of the ORM (wasn't obvious to me).
Kind regards,
Lloyd
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Benjamin Scherrey
wrote:
> The short answer to your quest
The short answer to your question is no, the Django ORM is not inherently
slower in that regard and it's very likely something you're doing. The
useful answer is probably more complicated. :-) Naive usage of the ORM
without an understanding of how it translates to SQL is likely to result in
some re
On 2014-09-03, at 4:22 PM, msoulier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at Django's performance with respect to modifying large numbers
> of objects, each in a unique way that cannot be batched. If I make a simple
> change to one of my Django models and save(), and then do the same thing in
> sqla
Hi,
I am looking at Django's performance with respect to modifying large
numbers of objects, each in a unique way that cannot be batched. If I make
a simple change to one of my Django models and save(), and then do the same
thing in sqlalchemy, I notice a performance difference of about 48 time
I made a patch for Django to add QuerySet.fields(*fields,
**related_fields) and make possible to load only some from master and
related models fields. It allows to tune various object list queries
when we need only limited subset of all fields, improve general
performance and decrease database loa
yezooz napisał(a):
>>> two words: intelligent caching
>>> Know what you're asking for commonly, and cache it up with memcache.
>>> That will do you a world of benefit.
>> Well of course caching will solve some of the problems, but cache
>> still needs to regenerated sometime...
>
> I should say
On 9/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have an app (0.96 so no select_related) that had a large initial
To be clear, select_related has existed for quite a while in Django --
0.91 at least.
> I got a lot of mileage by caching just in a dictionary
> the foreign keys so th
I have an app (0.96 so no select_related) that had a large initial
data load consisting of a couple core tables and several foreign key
relationships. I got a lot of mileage by caching just in a dictionary
the foreign keys so that the ORM wasn't doing lots of redundant
queries. I found the same
> Between caching, profiling, and having a good sense of what your
Profiling...the #1 thing to do.
Without profiling the app under "normal usage" (common actions &
browsing patterns gleaned from the current deployment) scaled to
high loads, you're just twiddling knobs and wasting time.
If the
On Sep 18, 11:06 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denormalization
That's the word I'm familiar with :)
I'm using it, but not as often as I probably should.
So in your opinion Djano's ORM is good
I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denormalization
On Sep 18, 10:57 pm, yezooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:34 pm, "Joseph Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Without knowing a hell of a lot more of the details of you site, what
> > you're
On Sep 18, 10:34 pm, "Joseph Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without knowing a hell of a lot more of the details of you site, what
> you're trying to do, etc - nobody can reasonably answer this question.
> The ORM is fine, but if it's not as fast as you need for certain
> queries, you can alw
Without knowing a hell of a lot more of the details of you site, what
you're trying to do, etc - nobody can reasonably answer this question.
The ORM is fine, but if it's not as fast as you need for certain
queries, you can always drop back to RAW sql to see if that will give
you speed. At the leve
On Sep 18, 10:23 pm, yezooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:14 pm, "Joseph Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > two words: intelligent caching
>
> > Know what you're asking for commonly, and cache it up with memcache.
> > That will do you a world of benefit.
>
> Well of course cachi
On Sep 18, 10:14 pm, "Joseph Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> two words: intelligent caching
>
> Know what you're asking for commonly, and cache it up with memcache.
> That will do you a world of benefit.
Well of course caching will solve some of the problems, but cache
still needs to regener
two words: intelligent caching
Know what you're asking for commonly, and cache it up with memcache.
That will do you a world of benefit.
-joe
On 9/18/07, yezooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> I'm sure many of you run high traffic websites in Django and I'm very
> curious how you're
hi all,
I'm sure many of you run high traffic websites in Django and I'm very
curious how you're avoiding performance hit caused by built-in ORM.
Select_related not always working and it's still might generate dozens
of select's.
Are you just running custom SQL queries with joins ?
greetings
-
21 matches
Mail list logo
