Cool, totally agree this should be benchmarked. I'll throw it on my TODO 
list. :)

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 4:47:30 PM UTC-4, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:24:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Hanks wrote:
>> Hello -
>> I'm using the null_dataset extension, which mentions a performance issue 
>> due to the use of Object#extend. It seems to me that we could get the same 
>> behavior simply by having nullify clone the ds with a "nullified" (or 
>> similar) dataset option, and the methods being overridden in that model 
>> would simply check for the presence of that key and call super if it 
>> doesn't exist. I expect this would be faster, though I haven't benchmarked 
>> it, and it seems more in keeping with the design of the rest of Sequel.
>> Does this seem like a reasonable goal? I'd be happy to work up a PR for 
>> it if it sounds acceptable.
> I'm not opposed to this if it can be shown to be a significant performance 
> issue on either ruby 2.3.1 and/or jruby 9.  I know it was a problem in 
> older ruby versions, but I'm not sure if it's still a significant 
> performance issue.  We may just be able to drop that line from the 
> extension rdoc.
> Be sure to include both your benchmark code and the benchmark results when 
> submitting your pull request.  Make sure the benchmark also includes the 
> case where nullify is not called, so we can compare what the effect of such 
> a change would be on code using the null_dataset extension without calling 
> nullify.
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to