# Re: TupleSpace performance (TupleBag really)

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-tuplespace-performance-tuplebag-really/84874>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [February 8, 2007, 10:32am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-tuplespace-performance-tuplebag-really/84874 "2007-02-08T10:32:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/michaeln)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 10:32am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-tuplespace-performance-tuplebag-really/84874/1 "2007-02-08T10:32:49Z")

</div>

Eric H. wrote:

> > restarted.  
> > We’ve been trying to come up  
> > with a better implementation of TupleBag but have not had much luck  
> > so far.  
> > Has anyone else done this?
> 
> I’ve heard a few people talk of it (mainly, TupleSpace with a  
> persistence (database)), but to my knowledge nobody’s done it.

I observed a similar behaviour (incredible slow down with lots of  
entries). My  
solution was to limit the number of entries to the TupleSpace by  
redesigning  
the application.

Regards,

Michael