On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
> Following up on my idea of using pickle protocol 2. I implemented this
> in a fully configurable fashion on a branch, mainly to ease
> benchmarking and testing of the different variants.
> My conclusions (maybe for future reference):
> - There's no significant win of just switching the pickle protocol
> - The code to make the protocol configurable on all levels (storage,
> index, persistent cache, ...) is large and ugly,
I'm puzzled. Why were changes so extensive? All existing code
should be able to read protocol 2 pickles. I would have expected a change
in ZODB.serialiize.ObjectWriter only. Can you explain why more extensive
changes were necessary?
> - Protocol 2 is only more efficient at dealing with boolean values,
> small tuples and longs - all infrequent in my type of data
Hm, interesting. I wasn't aware of those benefits.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org