Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
A record is an interesting critter -- it is given life either from the user
or from the disk-bound data; its fields can then change, but those changes
are not reflected on disk until .write_record() is called; I do this
because I am frequently moving data from one table to another, making
changes to the old record contents before creating the new record with the
changes -- since I do not call .write_record() on the old record those
changes do not get backed up to disk.
I strongly recommend being more explicit about usage and when it gets
written and re-read, rather than relying on garbage collection.
Databasing should not be tied to a language's garbage collection.
Imagine you were to reimplement the equivalent logic in some other
language - could you describe it clearly? If so, then that's your
algorithm. If not, you have a problem.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this for a couple hours now; initially
(waaaaay back when) I didn't want to keep hitting the disk unnecessarily
-- but all my other supporting data structures go to great lengths to
not keep records in memory unless the user has them explicitly named or
contained... I think I've been fighting against myself! Good news is
I'm winning. ;)
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
