> [...] I now have the the > overall time running within 10% of the 0.2.8 test, and the "inner" time > is within 20%. It was another one of those debugger lines which I now > made conditional. Great !! And thanks for your explanation.As usual, this is all about speed/performance vs. maintainability/elegant-code, and I completely understand and agree with you: having a clean code, easy to understand, which can easily evolve is worth, even if some speed degradation occurs, particularly (I guess) when developping an ORM. A treshold has to be found between both, and your logging optimisations clearly improve the speed (for me, run twice faster than previous 0.3.1, for the original tests).
> anyway, current speed test in rev 2127: > > 0.3/rev 2127: > total time 1.67651295662 > real 0m2.658s > user 0m1.707s > sys 0m0.391s > > 0.2.8: > total time 1.40534806252 > real 0m2.255s > user 0m1.457s > sys 0m0.379s Arrgh... While using the last revision improves speed, I do not have the same results... I'm probably missing something (maybe about the compiled mappers). Could you send back the modified tests so I can see what optimisations have been made ? Thanks. Cheers, Seb -- Sébastien LELONG [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
