On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tim Peters wrote:

Note that we have yet to use a new strategy for shrinking pickle sizes: a few years ago Python's pickle code grew support for "extension codes", a registry of class/type names that _can_ be referenced by short (as short as 2 bytes) new pickle codes, instead of embedding the module and class name into every pickle, over and over again. I don't recall the exact numbers
numbers, but some years ago Jeremy analyzed a customer Data.fs, and
discovered that at least half of it consisted of repetitions of the string "BTrees.OOBTree.OOBTree" ;-) That's the kind of thing the "extension code"
pickle mechanism was intended to address; it's a simple and cheap
compression gimmick, but so far unused.

Yes, I remembered this, and just refreshed my memory. This is the last mention I see in the archives as to ZODB use of protocol 2 (i.e., it doesn't, and prior to Py 2.3.4 it couldn't).


Is that still accurate--that is, does ZODB still not use protocol 2?

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to