Re: Open Source Quality

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 05:03:17 CDT

At 9:14 PM -0400 5/9/04, james_in_denver wrote:
>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.

PostgreSQL is a SQL-compatible version of Postgres. It's not clear
how stable and scalable it is, though.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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 23:17:29 2004

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