On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:28:50PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Use new and chunk it up:
>
>(dbSync)
>(for A As
> (at (0 . 1000) (commit 'upd) (prune) (dbSync))
> (new (db: +Article) '(+Article) key1 value1 key2 value2 ... ))
>(commit 'upd)
>
> With new! you are locking
It depends of course. In the rare case that you actually need each
row to be securely on disk before writing the next one, the original
approach was correct, but flushing each row will take some time
in SQL databases too. (Google for Transactions Per Minute.)
best,
Jakob
On May 30, 2012 at 7:
Use new and chunk it up:
(dbSync)
(for A As
(at (0 . 1000) (commit 'upd) (prune) (dbSync))
(new (db: +Article) '(+Article) key1 value1 key2 value2 ... ))
(commit 'upd)
With new! you are locking and writing every row so should only be used
in cases where you know you are only
I'm evaluating the use of picolisp for analyzing large datasets. Is it
surprising that inserting a million rows into a simple db would take 5+
minutes on modern hardware? I killed it after that after about 500K were
inserted. I checked by ctrl+c and then inspecting N. It seems to
progressively get
On May 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM Alexander Burger wrote:
>
> So let's wait a little if the upgrade will happen now as the bug is
> finally confirmed.
No, I am pretty sure that is not affecting it at all.
I think you as the bug reporter need to do what the janitor code said:
"To change the source
Hi Jorge,
> > (de processCustomers (N . Prg)
> > (let Lst (need N)
> > (iter (tree 'nr '+CuSu)
> >'((This)
> > (let Pos (wait NIL (memq NIL Lst))
> > (set Pos T)
> > (later Pos
> > (run Prg)
> >
Hi Jakob,
> I am not sure, but I suspect that the easiest way to get this fixed in Ubuntu
> 12.04 is create a point release for 3.0.8.10,
> for instance replacing 3.0.8.10-1 with 3.0.8.10-2 or something, with a minimal
> fix which only fixes the dynamic loader issue.
>
>
> Now, I don't know the
Hi Jakob,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > I've posted a bug report, asking for the upgrade, in the middle of
> > March:
> >
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/picolisp/+bug/956731
> >
>
> The report mentions that the bug is filed against Ubuntu in
On May 29, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Alexander Burger wrote:
>
> (de processCustomers (N . Prg)
> (let Lst (need N)
> (iter (tree 'nr '+CuSu)
>'((This)
> (let Pos (wait NIL (memq NIL Lst))
> (set Pos T)
> (later Pos
>
On May 29, 2012, at 12:30 AM, José Romero wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:51:21 +0200
> Jorge Acereda wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to invoke external commands for each entry in my database and
>> I want to run those in parallel, but restricting the number of
>> simultaneous jobs to a certain n
I am not sure, but I suspect that the easiest way to get this fixed in Ubuntu
12.04 is create a point release for 3.0.8.10,
for instance replacing 3.0.8.10-1 with 3.0.8.10-2 or something, with a minimal
fix which only fixes the dynamic loader issue.
Now, I don't know the differences between 3.1.
On May 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM Alexander Burger wrote:
> I've posted a bug report, asking for the upgrade, in the middle of
> March:
>
>https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/picolisp/+bug/956731
>
The report mentions that the bug is filed against Ubuntu in general and not
12.04 in particu
Hi all,
gradually I'm getting rather disappointed by the Ubuntu maintainers.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> bad news: The 64-bit version of PicoLisp doesn't (yet) run properly on
> Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.
>
> I've noticed the day before yesterday that some internal
Hi Henrik,
> That code makes me believe that I will be able to accomplish a
> progressbar without having to change my current PL web server code at
> all.
If it is only a progress bar what you are after, note that something
similar is already existent in the standard PicoLisp release.
It (ab)use
On further examination I have decided that websockets are overkill for
my purpose, it seems that XHR v2 is a better fit for file uploads.
Here is an example:
https://github.com/Integralist/XHR2-Multiple-File-Upload--with-PHP-
That code makes me believe that I will be able to accomplish a
progress
Hi Jorge, Henrik,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:26:42AM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> More complicated (but prettier) would be a later -> wait combo (if
> possible in your situation):
Yes, I would also say that 'later' / 'wait' is the way to go. But as I
understood Jorge, he wants to do something w
16 matches
Mail list logo
