[Q] Can I use Magma without Morphic System? (Re: [Seaside] Goods)
chunsj at embian.com
Thu Aug 17 06:30:51 UTC 2006
I'm currently using 3.8 based MVC only image + Seaside. Can I use
Magma without Morphic System?
Thanks in advance
On Aug 17, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
> I would just like to clarify, the Magma set up is "one-click" and
> always has been. Ramiro was describing his experience loading the
> "queries beta" version a couple of weeks ago, which was not one-click.
> That version was finished and announced last week, it is no longer in
> beta, is therefore now a one-click install.
> I would also like to clarify the performance comment. Ramiro, I
> profiled your
> NYSE instance getValuesFor: 'aapl' from: ('1/1/2004' asDate) to:
> ('1/1/2006' asDate)
> which addeds 504 objects and would like to clarify a couple of points
> about the 33 second profile:
> - 5.4 seconds was spent getting the data from Yahoo
> - 18.1 seconds spent doing 504 queries on the MagmaSet to determine
> if the object being added already exists. (NOTE 6 of which in
> - 10 seconds for the actual commit
> MagmaSets are expensive to add to, because every object requires it to
> query to see if that object already exists. You could use a
> MagmaCollection here and would see the time cut in half, 5.4 seconds
> for Yahoo and 10 seconds for the commmit.
> This is why I cringe at public declarations about performance. One
> persons 260 objects is different than anothers. I think the only
> meaningful way to describe or compare performance is with 1)
> well-explained execution contexts (hardware, etc.), 2) detailed
> descriptions of the task being measured, and 3) what performance-
> considerations (which, in Magma's case, can have a 10X improvement)
> were done.
> MagmaBenchmarker attempts to address these items:
> 1) the execution context includes computer, cpu, speed, memory, and
> 2) the benchmarking methods names are descriptive in what they do
> 3) the implementation of the methods can be examined to see what
> performance tuning mechanisms were used, if any
> To see this output for the latest Magma:
> I certainly don't want to proclaim Magma is blazing fast, but the
> MagmaBenchmarker on the current version just demonstrated, on my circa
> 2004 laptop, insertion of 1000 objects (100 at a time, 10 commits)
> a MagmaCollection in 4 seconds flat (5 without WriteBarrier).
> Understanding performance requires context, lots of context..
> - Chris
>> New cool query syntax (no one else has this).
>> Excellent support from Chris Müller and list.
>> Clean syntax
>> Indexes for various classes (Dates, Strings, Numbers, etc.)
>> Native Smalltalk
>> Integration package to use with Seaside.
>> Hard to set up (the latest beta version with queries at least)
>> Insert & update performance (inserting ~260 items on a magma
>> collection takes >30'' on a single commit)
>> Very simple to set up
>> Cleanest / less intrusive syntax of all ODBs I've seen
>> Pretty fast on inserts (on my not so large data sets at least)
>> Distributable / multi-language
>> Maintained by a single guy (I'm always scared of this... what if he
>> decides to run a restaurant?)
>> Not native Smalltalk
>> No indexes (must use Avi's BTree)
>> No queries
>> Seems to have been widely tested in several smalltalks
>> Locking problem on Macs and Linux with Squeak has not been resolved.
>> Hence, if you use Squeak, Windows is the only alternative. I've
>> tested it yesterday on my Mac and the locking issues were still
>> there. I don't know if it is still this way under Linux.
>> Ugliest syntax (for me, at least)
>> No query language.
>> Licencing? (don't really know about this)
>> But it would be great, at least for me, to hear what others been
>> through when they decided to implement an ODB.
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Seaside