On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:43:46PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
2011/3/11 Branko Čibej :
>...
> For the second tas
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> 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
>>> > t
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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 a
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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 a
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 -
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
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 in one transaction.
stsp has been working this recently. Killing the
2011/3/11 Branko Čibej :
> On 12.03.2011 01:29, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> So. Not a premature optimization, but a design choice.
>
> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. ACTUAL is just another op-depth
> with a few extra attributes, so let's compromise and call it an
> implementation choice, rath
On 12.03.2011 01:11, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I am glad you sent this because I was getting ready to send an email
> to see if anyone is looking into the suggestions you have made here.
> I think we have to get this work done soon. We cannot release with
> performance like it is. How do we define t
On 12.03.2011 01:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> 2011/3/11 Branko Čibej :
>> This comment is somewhat orthogonal to the API discussions, but as I've
>> noted before ... after my relatively brief sojourn in wc-db, I came to
>> the conclusion that having separate NODES and ACTUAL_NODE tables is
>> going to b
2011/3/11 Branko Čibej :
> This comment is somewhat orthogonal to the API discussions, but as I've
> noted before ... after my relatively brief sojourn in wc-db, I came to
> the conclusion that having separate NODES and ACTUAL_NODE tables is
> going to be a perpetual impediment to really speeding u
11 matches
Mail list logo
