Problem installing Riak Python client

Greg Stein gstein at
Thu Nov 10 22:13:29 EST 2011

On Nov 10, 2011 4:26 PM, "Nate Lawson" <nate at> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:51, Nate Lawson <nate at> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> BTW, are there any plans for the Riak python client to use the
protobuf C library directly via ctypes? The pure python implementation of
protobuf seems a little slow.
> >
> > Not that I've seen. I plan to use the HTTP interface because I can
> > encrypt it, and I can avoid MitM attacks. That isn't possible with the
> > protobuf interface. I think you'll need to find somebody that deploys
> > heavy use of the protobuf interface to be interested enough to improve
> > its speed.
> There should be an SSL option for Riak with protobufs, perhaps on an
alternate port. No reason to go to http just to get SSL.

Certainly, but I haven't heard anyone thinking of that either.

Unless/until somebody codes that up, then I'm sticking to HTTP(S).

> > Note that I've sped up the Python HTTP transport. It is definitely
> > faster (via persistent connections), but I haven't done a comparison
> > against protobufs yet. Basho has a benchmarking tool that I might try.
> I wonder if gzip encoding would also help for larger keys/values?

It absolutely would. It is generally faster to compress/decompress than the
time spent to transfer the extra bytes on the wire.

I dunno Erlang, but I could certainly fix the Python client to deal with
potential compression.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the riak-users mailing list