Hello Jim,
Monday, May 10, 2010, 1:27:00 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Bruggink wrote:
>> That's really interesting! Did you notice any issues performance wise, or
>> didn't you check that yet?
JF> I didn't check performance. I just iterated over a file storage file,
J
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> Monday, May 10, 2010, 1:27:00 PM, you wrote:
>
> JF> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Bruggink wrote:
>>> That's really interesting! Did you notice any issues performance wise, or
>>> didn't you check that yet?
>
> JF> I di
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ryan Noon wrote:
> P.S. About the data structures:
> wordset is a freshly unpickled python set from my old sqlite oodb thingy.
> The new docsets I'm keeping are 'L' arrays from the stdlib array module.
> I'm up for using ZODB's builtin persistent data structures i
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:04 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> Monday, May 10, 2010, 1:27:00 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JF> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Bruggink wrote:
That's really interesting! Did you notice any i
So I'm about to update the transaction package and this gives me an
opportunity to do something I've been meaning to do for a while, which
is to add support for the Python with statement:
with transaction:
... transaction body ...
and:
with some_transaction_manager as t:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:04 PM, you wrote:
>
> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> Hello Jim,
>>>
>>> Monday, May 10, 2010, 1:27:00 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> JF> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Br
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:04 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello Jim,
Monday, May 10, 2010, 1:2
I'm already using custom transaction/savepoint context managers in my
code. I use them like
with TransactionContext():
db.root['sp_test'] = 'init'
with SavepointContext():
db.root['sp_test'] = 'saved'
On of the context managers:
class TransactionContext(object):
def __init__(s
Am 11.05.2010, 13:47 Uhr, schrieb Adam GROSZER :
> Hello Jim,
>
> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
>
> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER
> wrote:
>>> Hello Jim,
>>>
>>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:04 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam
> def __exit__(self, t, v, tb):
> if t is not None:
> self.txn.abort()
> else:
> for i in range(self.retryCount):
Oops, bug here. It should read range(1 + self.retryCount). It should
probably have unittests anyway :-)
-Matthias
__
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> [...] The best I've been
> able to come up with is something like:
>
> t = ZODB.transaction(3)
> while t.trying:
> with t:
> ... transaction body ...
I think you could get this to work:
for transaction in ZODB.retries(3
Hello,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:59:17 PM, you wrote:
N> Am 11.05.2010, 13:47 Uhr, schrieb Adam GROSZER :
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER
>> wrote:
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:0
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 14:47, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Probably that crappy data would make the unpickler fail... or wait a
> second... the unpickler is a **SECURITY HOLE** in python, isn't it?
> That means feed it some random data... and stay tuned for the
> unexpected.
That a bitflip would genera
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Nitro wrote:
> I'm already using custom transaction/savepoint context managers in my
> code. I use them like
...
> Now you could probably extend this to look like
>
> class TransactionContext(object):
> def __init__(self, txn = None, retryCount = 3):
>
On May 11, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 14:47, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Probably that crappy data would make the unpickler fail... or wait a
>> second... the unpickler is a **SECURITY HOLE** in python, isn't it?
>> That means feed it some random data... and st
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Benji York wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> [...] The best I've been
>> able to come up with is something like:
>>
>> t = ZODB.transaction(3)
>> while t.trying:
>> with t:
>> ... transaction body ...
>
> I thin
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> This is an improvement. It's still unsatisfying, but I don't think I'm going
> to
> get satisfaction. :)
Given that PEP 343 explicitly mentions *not* supporting an auto retry
construct, I should think not. :)
--
Benji York
__
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
>
> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> Hello Jim,
>>>
>>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:33:04 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Adam
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 4:46:46 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1
Am 11.05.2010, 16:01 Uhr, schrieb Jim Fulton :
> This wouldn't work. You would need to re-execute the suite
> for each retry. It's not enough to just keep committing the same
> transaction. (There are other details wrong with the code above,
> but they are fixable.) Python doesn't provide a way
Am 11.05.2010, 17:08 Uhr, schrieb Nitro :
> Am 11.05.2010, 16:01 Uhr, schrieb Jim Fulton :
>
>> This wouldn't work. You would need to re-execute the suite
>> for each retry. It's not enough to just keep committing the same
>> transaction. (There are other details wrong with the code above,
>> but
On 11 May 2010 15:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Benji York wrote:
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> [...] The best I've been
>>> able to come up with is something like:
>>>
>>> t = ZODB.transaction(3)
>>> while t.trying:
>>> with t:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
> On 11 May 2010 15:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Benji York wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
[...] The best I've been
able to come up with is something like:
t
Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> I plan to implement A soon if there are no objections.
>>>
>>> Unless someone somehow convinced me to do D, I'll also add an
>>> assertion in the Transaction.join method to raise an error if a
>>> data manager joins more than once.
>> Option A sounds sensible. It also means I
On 5/11/10 19:41 , Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
I plan to implement A soon if there are no objections.
Unless someone somehow convinced me to do D, I'll also add an
assertion in the Transaction.join method to raise an error if a
data manager joins more than once
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
>
>
> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 4:46:46 PM, you wrote:
>
> JF> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> Hello Jim,
>>>
>>> Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:37:19 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> JF> On Tue, May 11, 20
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Bruggink wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> Our recent discussion of compression made me curious so I did some
>> analysis of pickle sizes in one of our large databases. This is for a
>> content management system. The database is
Hi Jim,
I'm really sorry for the miscommunication, I thought I made that clear in my
last email:
"I'm wrapping ZODB in a 'ZMap' class that just forwards all the dictionary
methods to the ZODB root and allows easy interchangeability with my old
sqlite OODB abstraction."
wordid_to_docset is a "ZMa
I think this means that you are storing all of your data in a single
persistent object, the database root PersistentMapping. You need to
break up your data into persistent objects (instances of objects that
inherit from persistent.Persistent) for the ZODB to have a chance of
performing memory mappi
Thanks Laurence, this looks really helpful. The simplicity of ZODB's
concept and the joy of using it apparently hides some of the complexity
necessary to use it efficiently. I'll check this out when I circle back to
data stuff tomorrow.
Have a great morning/day/evening!
-Ryan
On Tue, May 11, 20
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 8:36:46 PM, you wrote:
JF> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Roel Bruggink wrote:
>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> Our recent discussion of compression made me curious so I did some
>>> analysis of pickle sizes in one of our large data
31 matches
Mail list logo
