I somewhat mentioned this [1] when I was running ActiveRecord tests under 1.9.2
vs 1.8.7. Someone else mentioned there was a bug fix [2] which I can see is
applied to both 3-0-stable/2-3-stable. Even though after this, I still found
1.9.2 to be way slower. I never did the legwork to find out
5410 should be fixed..
1.9.2 has this new setup where you can implement a function
responds_to_missing to deal with responds_to for functions that are
handled by method_missing.
ActiveRecord was removing all the default methods on the AssociationProxy
object that didn't match a regular
On 10 January 2011 15:06, Stephen sblackst...@gmail.com wrote:
5410 should be fixed..
Do you believe that may be the cause of the slow startup using 1.9.2?
I believe that Ken Collins said that it made little difference for
him.
Colin
1.9.2 has this new setup where you can implement a
Agreed!
Please do not let my aside on 5410 distract the issue. 1.9.2 is still slow!
- Ken
5410 should be fixed..
Do you believe that may be the cause of the slow startup using 1.9.2?
I believe that Ken Collins said that it made little difference for
him.
--
You received this
SEEKING A GREAT WEB QA Engineer!
Please let me know if you would be interested in speaking!
Ken Collins wrote:
Agreed!
Please do not let my aside on 5410 distract the issue. 1.9.2 is still slow!
- Ken
5410 should be fixed..
Do you believe that may be the cause of the slow
There are things that the C require code does in 1.9 that slow things down.
One such example is re-checking $LOAD_PATH to make sure it is all expanded
on every require. This is something that should be addressed by ruby-core.
I'll open a ticket on redmine if there isn't one already.
Yehuda Katz
ko1 was looking for a sample app to reproduce the problem,
http://osdir.com/ml/ruby-talk/2010-12/msg00350.html
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
There are things that the C require code does in 1.9 that slow things down.
One such example is re-checking
That bug was specific to certain situations, namely calling methods on
named scopes or association proxies. There are certainly other fish to fry,
I just wanted to address that one specific case.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Ken Collins k...@metaskills.net wrote:
Agreed!
Please do
