On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Leonardo Santagada <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:santagada@gmail.com" target="_blank">santagada@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="im"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Claudiu Saftoiu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:csaftoiu@gmail.com" target="_blank">csaftoiu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Once I know the difference I'll probably be able to answer this myself, but I wonder why the ZEO server doesn't do the sort of caching that allow the client to operate so quickly on the indices once they are loaded.</blockquote>
</div><br></div>IIRC zeo not only takes bytes from the storage and put them on a socket, it has a kind of heavy protocol for sending objects that has overhead on each object, so lots of small objects (that are 400mb in size) take a lot more time than sending a 400mb blob.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ah that would make perfect sense. So ZEO and catalog indices really don't mix well at all. </div></div>