On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, March 16, 2012 6:34:05 PM UTC-7, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > I'll try not to take offense to the "if you're beginning to think about > performance issues". :) I actually do spend quite a bit of time thinking > about performance issues, and have for some time. The reason Sequel uses a > pure string concatenation approach for building SQL is that it is the > fastest way I know of. I'm pretty sure Sequel's SQL literalizer is orders > of magnitude faster than ARel's in the worse case (see > https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel/commit/092905dea17e1c800e5c6af6c38ff4997d0bdf8f). > There are large parts of Sequel that are unoptimized, but most of the inner > loops are heavily optimized. If I've missed some low hanging fruit, please > do send in patches. :) >
I beg your pardon; I have been very impressed with Sequel's performance, and I'm also a user of sequel-pg. I had read contradictory benchmarks about Ruby's concatenation; perhaps it was because they were based on + instead of <<. -p -- Peter van Hardenberg San Francisco, California "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt." -- Kurt Vonnegut -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-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/sequel-talk?hl=en.
