On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:32:28PM -0600, Michael Carman wrote:
On 11/3/2003 12:20 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, if your cover_db holds data for a dozen files, but you test them
one at a time, you have to read and write
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:37:29PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran
On 11/3/2003 12:20 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, if your cover_db holds data for a dozen files, but you test them
one at a time, you have to read and write *all* the coverage data (as well
as have the RAM to hold it).
Tim Bunce said:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:17:24PM -0500, Michael Carman wrote:
I've included a patch for Devel/Cover/DB.pm in case someone else wants
to try it. It has *not* been sanctioned by Paul (though he's welcome to
it) so use at your own risk. Obviously, the file format for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I ran some more tests, some of which might be more significant:
time(sec) db size (kB)peak RAM (MB)
no coverage 15 --- ~ 10
Data::Dumper+eval246 245 ~ 23.4
Storable 190
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snipped Devel::Cover metrics]
Thanks. This is interesting.
Was this using all the coverage criteria?
Looking back at my test harness... no, it's just the heavy stuff that
I find most useful: statement, branch, and condition
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:16:57AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm still a little concerned about hitting problems with Storable, so I
think I'll apply the patch and then run cpancover on a bunch of modules
and compare the output to that of Data::Dumper/eval. If all goes well
I'll keep the
Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Carman wrote:
I tried it, and it does help some. In my very unscientific test[1] it
ran about 20% faster. The size of the db file (on disk) was about 75%
smaller.
Thanks. 20% is certainly useful.
I ran some more tests, some of which might be
Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:37:29PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran some more tests, some of which might be more significant:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:37:29PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Carman wrote:
I tried it, and it does help some. In my very unscientific test[1] it
ran about 20% faster. The size of the db file (on disk) was about 75%
smaller.
On Tue 28 Oct 2003 17:51, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Storable looks like it's performing pretty well, with only a small
overhead. Eventually, I think that a transition to a real database
(where you can read/write only the portions of interest) would be good.
How would you define
On 10/22/2003 4:01 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Ovid wrote:
Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd strongly recommend switching to Storable first. It did have problems
but it's now very robust and far, far, faster than Data::Dumper+eval.
This small change
12 matches
Mail list logo
