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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
