On Dec 6, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Despite this change there are still a huge amount
of unexplained calls to the 'persistent_id' method of the
Why 'unexplained'? 'persistent_id' is called from the Pickler
being used in ObjectWriter._dump(). It is called for each and every
single object reachable from the main object, due to the way Pickler
works (I believe). Maybe persistent_id can be analysed and optimized
for the most common cases?
Note that there is a undocumented feature in cPickle that I added
years ago to deal with this issue but never got around to
pursuing. Maybe someone else would be able to spend the time to
try it out and report back.
If you set inst_persistent_id, rather than persistent_id, on a
pickler, then the hook will only be called for instances. This
should eliminate that vast majority of the calls.
Note that this feature was added back when testing was minimal or
non-existent, so it is untested, however, the implementation is
simple enough. :)
Do you mean that the ZODB has enough tests now that making the
change and running the tests might already be a good proof ?
No, I mean that pickle and cPickle lack tests for this feature.
Or should we be more prudent ?
It would be nice to try this out with ZODB to see if it makes much
difference. If it does, then that would provide extra motivation for
me to add the missing test.
Roché Compaan said he would try it out, but I just realized that he
might have been waiting for me.
If it would,
What do you mean by 'If it would' ?
If we can measure a benefit.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org