https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
--- Comment #86 from David Cook <dc...@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #84) > + # This is so much faster than using Koha::Items->search that it makes > sense even if it's ugly. > + my $query = 'SELECT * FROM items WHERE biblionumber = ?'; > > Patch still applies. > If I am reading thru the comments above, the main point of discussion is > now: Do we want to return to raw sql in the above lines? It is rather > obvious that this is faster than Koha::Object/DBIx. But we made a choice for > DBIx and are still wrestling to implement it in the codebase. What would be > the decisive reason for making the exception here, and would it be a > precedent for doing similar things elsewhere? Also note that although the > test plan refers to verifying that things are faster, I do not see any > benchmark figures on the report. > > Moving to discussion and sending mail to QA. I'd say the decisive reason would be that the low-performance of DBIx::Class adds up when doing batch operations. While low-performance and high convenience might be tolerable for many single requests, if you're dealing with high volumes of data, it's a nightmare. Even fractions of a second per record can add up to unacceptably slow amounts of time. I've used raw SQL at https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10662#c221 for the same reason. I wish I had included benchmarks on that bug, but with the raw SQL and re-using the statement handle, I was able to process much higher volumes. I think it was like 100 records per second instead of 4 records per second. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/