Chris Withers wrote at 2006-11-16 17:29 +0000:
>I'm wondering if you can still remember the rational behind the cache
>code at around lines 355-387 of:
>This code is pretty old (checked in 5th Dec 1997) but has started
>causing a few people problems under high load:
>- in line 368, why is len(cache)>max_cache/2 used as a trigger to start
>cache clearing? (the /2 in particular)
You may want to start getting rid of keys old enough that you would not
use them anyway already before you reached max cache.
I do not know why that is not done always -- an
"XYBucket" has an efficient method to determine the minimal key,
thus we could get rid of the "len(cache) > max_cache /2".
And of course, it is quite stupid to determine the keys and reverse
them, even when no key is old enough....
>- does it matter that IOBTree.Bucket has gone away and that tcache is
> now a simple dictionary? It certainly seems to make the keys.reverse()
> on line 370 superfluous and the keys[-1]<t on line 371 less reliable.
Yes. You want to kill the dict and use the "IOBucket"...
>More generally, do you or does anyone else have any attachment to this
>code or would anyone mind if I ripped it out and replaced it with
>something simpler, with more comments and unit tests?
Very good idea.
If you are at it.
The idea to have this cache maintained via a "_v_" attribute
is insane. A module level cache would be much more efficient
and save memory as well.
You may look at my "CCZSQLMethods"...
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -