obviously you need to forward along that test case. i have no idea what changed in 0.2.8 to 0.3 that could be slowing it down like that without seeing some actual code. there have been plenty of major changes (but none come to mind with regards to object creation).
also, id say dont use the threadlocal plugin, its crap. it was only designed for 0.1 backwards compatibility. although i doubt its the cause of the speed hit here. also, try out the trunk as I just made a major improvement to cascade performance yesterday. On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Sébastien LELONG wrote: > Dear SQLAlchemists, > > I'm currently experiencing performance issues, using SA 0.3.1 (same > for SA > 0.3.0). I run a Twisted/SQLAlchemy based application which cycles > over a > range of dates, and for each date basically: > 1. extracts data from a database (one table) > 2. builds objects from this data > 3. stores these objects in another database (two tables) > > Running a unit test with SA 0.3.1 gives the following results, > using "time > python mytest.py": > real 14m28.188s > user 13m3.053s > sys 0m9.161s > > Running exactly the same test with SA 0.2.8, gives: > real 2m19.755s > user 1m45.403s > sys 0m2.104s > > So, SA 0.2.8 is, in my case, approx. 6-7 times faster than SA 0.3.1. > The test is exactly the same (same test fixtures, same database, same > libs, ...), except SA lib version. Both extraction and storage are > slower. > > FWIW, the data model is quite simple for both databases. There is > no relations > declared as a mapper's property. I'm using inheritance > (polymorphic) while > storing built objects. The whole is running using MySQL database. > While > extracting data (step 1), ~ 120 000 objects are extracted (bunch of > 6000 > objects per cycle). During storage (step 3), ~ 5000 objects are > stored (bunch > 200 objects per cycle). I'm using DynamicMetadata to bind tables > and the > threadlocal plugin. > > Is there anybody here who found out such performance issues with SA > 0.3.x ? Is > there any major changes in SA 0.3.x which could explain such a > performance > decrease ? > > > Cheers, > > Seb > > -- > Sébastien LELONG > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Sqlalchemy-users mailing list > Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
