On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:45 -0400, "Aryeh Gregor"
<Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Karun Dambiec
<karun(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
From looking further into ADODB, it appears that
the performance hit
from using it could be significant for projects like Wikipedia (14% or
so from the statistics on the ADODB site).
14% over what? For trivial queries that take 0.1ms to execute anyway?
Not for long complicated ones, I bet. And I'm awfully sure it's not
14% for all of MediaWiki, including the parser and all. I doubt it
has more overhead than our current solution -- probably much less,
since it does much less. But the overhead is going to be negligible
if you run a sane number of queries per request, unless this has way
more features than I think.
Some of ADODBs own benchmarks have revealed that it is not necessarily
too fast. If there is no accelerator used there is a significant speed
decrease in comparison to using MySQL directly. I assume the same would
likely apply for other database.
Benchmark 2
The first benchmark is a synthetic one that does not measure
live performance. This benchmark tries to be more realistic,
measuring HTTP requests/second. In this test, we select and
display 82 rows from the products table once per page request.
...
Two runs were taken and averaged for each test. Higher values are
better. All measurements in pages/second.
With No
Accelerator Accelerator
MySQL 83.53 81.35
ADOdb 61.19 21.33
PEAR DB 52.85 25.26