On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 08:33 -0500, John Siracusa wrote: > > This is one of the major reasons why I've never bothered with optimising > > performance for this situation - by coding in the correct manner, the > > number of very small database hits is minimised. Then it doesn't really > > matter how long they take. > I think you misunderstand what the tests are doing. They're meant to > highlight exactly the features that you're describing. Fetching objects and > some of their associated objects in other tables is a common task. Many of > the tests revolve around this task (with various twists). There are other, > earlier tests that measure the performance of single-row loads, and so on.
Well, I still think it's timing of the wrong thing, but I'll be happy to participate. > Anyway, I'll take a look at what you've submitted and I'll see if I can use > it to make some sort of reasonable comparison. I'm going to have to change > the inflate/deflate stuff to use DateTime instead of Date::Manip because > it's important for all the ORMs to use the same kind of object in order to > properly isolate the overhead imposed by the ORM itself (instead of mudding > the waters by highlighting the differences between the various date modules, > which is fodder for another benchmark suite entirely :) Right. So, it should use datetime rather than dmdatetime. The inflate/deflate for that can be seen in the Tangram::Type::Date::DateTime package. Sam. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
