On 06 Aug 2015, at 15:36, Juanjo Conti wrote:
> I've checked the number of entries and is only 350. They are regular
> cookies for well known sites like google, new relic, twitter...
That should not be a performance bottleneck. How often are you calling this
(let's call it saveAllCookies for la
I was calling archive a lot of times! Changing that really improve
performance.
Thanks!
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
>
> > With only 350 objects you should be fine using a ‘dumb’ archived
> dictionary. I’ve used that approach for several thousand objects that were
> more co
> With only 350 objects you should be fine using a ‘dumb’ archived dictionary.
> I’ve used that approach for several thousand objects that were more complex
> than cookies; this was on a Mac, but it was back in 2004 so it was probably
> slower than today’s iPhones ;-)
>
>> I detect the perform
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jens Alfke wrote:
> As far as I know, there’s no good Cocoa solution for super-simple
> persistence — something like a persistent NSDictionary that can efficiently
> store any number of keys. This would be pretty easy to implement using a
> bare-bones key/value sto
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Juanjo Conti wrote:
>
> I've checked the number of entries and is only 350. They are regular
> cookies for well known sites like google, new relic, twitter...
With only 350 objects you should be fine using a ‘dumb’ archived dictionary.
I’ve used that approach for
> On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> IMO, Core Data is a terribly painful technology that will make you very, very
> miserable, not to mention adding many months to your project.
I’m not _quite_ as down on it, but my attempts to use it circa 2006-07 weren’t
as successful
I've checked the number of entries and is only 350. They are regular
cookies for well known sites like google, new relic, twitter...
I detect the performance issue using Instruments to mesure CPU time. The
heaviest call from my call resulted to [CookieKey encodeWithCoder:] which
current implementa
On 06 Aug 2015, at 05:17, Juanjo Conti wrote:
> At the moment I'm using Keyed-Archiving, but after detecting performance
> issues and read I'm changing to Core-Data.
How did you detect these performance issues, and where exactly did it show you
that keyed archiving is at fault?
> The data stru
On Aug 5, 2015, at 20:17 , Juanjo Conti wrote:
>
> At the moment I'm using Keyed-Archiving, but after detecting performance
> issues and read I'm changing to Core-Data.
What quantity of entries/records are you talking about here? It’s not going to
make a big difference to performance (as oppose
