On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 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.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev

Reply via email to