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 sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to