But then it still makes it better on the Python side. You still have psycopg memory problems but don't you have that now all the time anyways?
On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:50:57 AM UTC+2, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > On 26 juil. 2013, at 09:40, julianb <julia...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > I don't think the queryset needs to be loaded into memory. There is an > iterator() method available: > > I don't think .iterator() does what you expect. See > http://thebuild.com/presentations/unbreaking-django.pdf, slide 62 and 63. > If you're careful, model instances will be garbage-collected, but you still > have the entire psycopg result set in memory. > > To improve performance in this case you're probably better off with > .values() or .values_list(), or more likely by splitting your sitemap. > > -- > Aymeric. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
