[rozap]

Not sure about ruby, but django doesn't ship with connection pooling, so that is probably why its database performance is terrible. It could be configured to use pooling.

With such a trivial request handler like the one in benchmark, only a small percentage of the execution is actually taken up in the view, so all of the time you're seeing in the benchmark is pure overhead of the framework. A longer running view across all of these frameworks would cause things to even out a bit. All that being said, however, it's not an unfair comparison. After all, a benchmark of this nature should be a measure of overhead because that's really all there is to measure.

[pfalls]

Correct, because we chose MySQL as the database backend, both Django and Flask are punished for not having a connection pool. We've received requests to do the test using Postgres which does have a connection pool, and we hope to eventually get to that.

[irahul]

What are your using for db access? If you are using SQLAlchemy or Flask-SQLAlchemy, that should automatically do connection pooling.

[the_mitsuhiko]

Flask-SQLAlchemy does not use a pool by default. This can be changed by setting the `SQLALCHEMY_POOL_SIZE` config variable though.