No. We have done nothing with laziness. If your graph doesn't change much, you could probably roll your own. If it is changing often, I'm not sure laziness would be such a good thing. One way of rolling your own could be going through and getting all the ids of the elements you want and then mapping across those lazily while doing any work you want with the objects they represent. That shouldn't be too difficult to do and all your id's might easily fit into memory without any problems. -Zack
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:30:02 PM UTC-4, Cedric Greevey wrote: > > I have some additional questions about Titanium, as the documentation did > not make these particular matters sufficiently clear: > > 1. Can query results take the form of a lazy sequence, one which will not > result in an OOME if it's too large so long as the head is not held onto > while it is consumed? E.g. (take 3 (run-query-with-ten-zillion-results)) > should not blow up. > > 2. In particular, can indexed-key searches do so? > > 3. Given a backing DB that supports global queries of the whole graph, and > supposing the graph was ginormous and a query returned all or most of the > nodes, could *those* be lazily consumed in an OOME-avoiding manner? > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
