Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Branko Čibej
On 12.03.2011 19:41, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz > wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >>> I think we have to get this work done soon. We cannot release with >>> performance like it is. How do we define the scope of the

Re: Subversion trunk (r1078338) HTTP(/WC?) performance problems?

2011-03-12 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 20:10, Philip Martin wrote: > Ivan Zhakov writes: > >>> The one small anomaly is 1.7/serf against a 1.6 server, it is fast but >>> it uses a bit more CPU. (I'm using r1080251). >>> >> That is expected performance improvement because of r1080245 [1]: >> [[[ >> ra_serf: Impl

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Mark Phippard
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with >> performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that >> needs to be done so that we can divi

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 20:49, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with >> performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that >> needs to be done so that we can divide

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with > performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that > needs to be done so that we can divide and conquer and get these > changes in place? It sounds like

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote: > On IRC, there was a discussion about the wc_db API. In particular > whether to have lots of query functions, or to have the caller sort it > out. As Bert noted, my original intent was to provide the caller with > enough information and l

Re: wc_db performance (was: wc_db API discussion)

2011-03-12 Thread Branko Čibej
Thanks, Stefan, this looks very promising. I won't make any promises about grabbing some of that code, given how much time I have on my hands ... but I'm glad that at least the proplist bits can be reused. -- Brane On 12.03.2011 13:47, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:43:46PM -

Re: wc_db performance (was: wc_db API discussion)

2011-03-12 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:43:46PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote: > 2011/3/11 Branko Čibej : > >... > > For the second task, I think the first order of business is to change > > the wc-db tree crawler to do one query instead of zillions, or at least, > > where several queries are required, to do them all