On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:14 AM, eliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/3/08, Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:25:33 +0200 > > Sylvester Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey Sylvester. > > I think I like this method better than the other. Could you fix the > > indentation (especially in function query), put a more descriptive > > commit message, and resubmit? Thanks. > > I already outlined on the bugtracker why I thought this wasn't exactly > a great idea, as it was implemented. > oh well. > > This is a different implementation than the one discussed on the bugtracker. The difference is that with this, you can specify on the client-side what fields the json result should contain, while the other was set server-side. There is no sql joins going on, so it would be a performance increase due to the fact that currently the rpc clients have to do N+1 databasel queries, where N is the number of hits on the initial search. This cuts it down the number of queries to one.
