Re: Open Source Quality

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 20:14:04 CDT

On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 20:49, David Mertz wrote:
> Note on Arthur's note: The study Doug cited was updated in 1995, using
> new tool versions. Still not brand new, but not 14 years.
> On May 9, 2004, at 7:59 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > For stations handling bigger numbers, I get concerned about the
> > performance of python - at those larger sizes, which tend to be only
> > in county and state wide aggregations - I believe that more
> > traditional languages and databases will be useful.
> Psyco is profound magic. It makes Python rival C in speed, without a
> line or two added to turn on the JIT compiler.
> But the bottleneck would likely be the database anyway, so I agree that
> at a state level we probably shouldn't try to work directly with a huge
> batch of XML files. Some kind of relational database (Postgress?
> MySQL?) is a good choice for that.

For transactional security, and that seems to be a very high priority
for this project, then Postgres would be the better choice. MySQL does
not have any transaction mechanisms. Since the project's back end data
store is where the actual tabulation of votes takes place, I would
strongly recommend for a transactional aware database.


= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT