Thanks! That's close enough and easy to backport. In principle, a solution that did O(1) queries, rather than O(N) would be nice, but the reduction in memory use at least gets me back to something tolerable.
-kevin On Feb 23, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Frederick Cheung wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 8:28 pm, Kevin Scaldeferri <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'm trying to figure out it there's some alternative to find(:all) >> that can avoid instantiating every object at once, when I know that >> I'm just going to iterate over the collection and throw it away. >> E.g. >> > > http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/d13623ca46c82120c398f4634e206422fc3ad7ea > ? > > Fred >> def batch_process >> User.find(:all).each do |user| >> batch_process_one_user(user) >> end >> end >> >> Unfortunately, this may instantiate millions of User objects and use >> up GB of memory, which is not acceptable. I've been digging through >> docs and code trying to figure out how I can do this within Rails, >> rather than having to go down to the raw DB connection and build from >> there, or pushing everything into a stored procedure. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -kevin > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
