My use case is a bit different : new_entries can be placed everywhere into the existing SA list, not only at the end (actually it depends on the entry date).
On 22 sep, 21:20, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, looking more closely i see you're replacing self.entries with a > list, not insorting into a SA list collection- that's totally ok. It > might squeeze a little more speed out to do: > > updated_entries = list(self.entries) + new_entries > base = len(self.entries) > for idx, entry in enumerate(new_entries): > entry.position = base + idx > self.entries = updated_entries > > orderinglist's extend method could be made to do something much like the > above quite efficiently. > > jason kirtland wrote: > > A warning: that depends on a bug in the C version of bisect. When given > > a list subclass, it mistakenly ignores the subclass method > > implementations. The below will break, if and when that's fixed to > > match the pure Python implementation in the standard lib. > > > Calling list.extend(account_entries, new_entries) is probably a safe > > alternative. > > > *http://bugs.python.org/issue3935 > > > jean-philippe dutreve wrote: > >> What I've done is something like this: > > >> account_entries = self.entries[:] > >> for entry in new_entries: > >> insort_right(account_entries, entry) > >> for i, entry in enumerate(account_entries): > >> entry.position = i > >> self.entries = account_entries > > >> Don't know if it's the right way to do it but it's much faster. > > >> On 22 sep, 18:41, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I'm sure there is potential for improvement on the current orderinglist > >>> code- please feel free to send a patch with optimizations you've found > >>> to the SA trac. > > >>> The orderinglist hasn't changed much since 0.3, but with 0.5 there may > >>> be entirely new implementations possible. For example, I could imagine > >>> one that defers calculation and manipulation of the positioning > >>> information until a before_flush hook. That may be perform better, with > >>> the trade-off that the position attribute can't be trusted to be in sync > >>> with the list order. > > >>> jean-philippe dutreve wrote: > >>>> Below is the profiling of code that added 1200 items into an > >>>> ordering_list relation. I had to bypass the ordering_list stuff for > >>>> bulk additions in order to have better performance (down to 2 > >>>> seconds). > >>>> Hope this post helps to improve this part (using 0.5.0rc1, python 2.5, > >>>> linux i686, 1.5Go RAM) > >>>> SA is rocking! > >>>> jean-philippe > >>>> Time elapsed: 48.4475638866 s > >>>> 8875046 function calls (8869157 primitive calls) in 48.443 > >>>> CPU seconds > >>>> Ordered by: internal time, call count > >>>> List reduced from 390 to 10 due to restriction <10> > >>>> ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall > >>>> filename:lineno(function) > >>>> 1292937/1292250 7.879 0.000 12.134 0.000 attributes.py: > >>>> 132(__get__) > >>>> 1241013 7.662 0.000 39.836 0.000 orderinglist.py: > >>>> 221(_order_entity) > >>>> 1241013 5.870 0.000 16.916 0.000 orderinglist.py: > >>>> 202(_get_order_value) > >>>> 440809 4.522 0.000 9.527 0.000 attributes.py:394(set) > >>>> 1236 4.198 0.003 44.025 0.036 orderinglist.py: > >>>> 208(reorder) > >>>> 1299736/1299048 3.752 0.000 4.373 0.000 attributes.py: > >>>> 310(get) > >>>> 448225 3.337 0.000 5.157 0.000 identity.py: > >>>> 208(modified_event) > >>>> 437061 2.704 0.000 14.331 0.000 orderinglist.py: > >>>> 205(_set_order_value) > >>>> 440809 2.225 0.000 11.752 0.000 attributes.py: > >>>> 126(__set__) > >>>> 448225 1.775 0.000 1.812 0.000 attributes.py: > >>>> 958(modified_event) > >>>> Function was called by... > >>>> attributes.py:132(__get__) <- domain.py:200(addEntry) > >>>> (1236) 46.741 > >>>> domain.py:248(__init__) > >>>> (1236) 47.832 > >>>> domain.py:272(get)(49452) > >>>> 0.609 > >>>> orderinglist.py: > >>>> 202(_get_order_value)(1241013) 16.916 > >>>> orderinglist.py:221(_order_entity) <- orderinglist.py:208(reorder) > >>>> (1240326) 44.025 > >>>> orderinglist.py:232(append) > >>>> (687) 0.013 > >>>> orderinglist.py:202(_get_order_value) <- orderinglist.py: > >>>> 221(_order_entity)(1241013) 39.836 > >>>> attributes.py:394(set) <- attributes.py:126(__set__) > >>>> (440809) 11.752 > >>>> orderinglist.py:208(reorder) <- orderinglist.py: > >>>> 266(__setslice__)(1236) 44.061 > >>>> attributes.py:310(get) <- attributes.py:132(__get__) > >>>> (1292937) 12.134 > >>>> attributes.py: > >>>> 347(get_committed_value)(1) 0.000 > >>>> attributes.py:500(set) > >>>> (3708) 0.367 > >>>> attributes.py: > >>>> 837(value_as_iterable)(3090) 0.108 > >>>> identity.py:208(modified_event) <- attributes.py:394(set) > >>>> (440809) 9.527 > >>>> attributes.py: > >>>> 525(fire_replace_event)(3708) 0.236 > >>>> attributes.py: > >>>> 579(fire_append_event)(3708) 1.960 > >>>> orderinglist.py:205(_set_order_value) <- orderinglist.py: > >>>> 221(_order_entity)(437061) 39.836 > >>>> attributes.py:126(__set__) <- domain.py: > >>>> 237(_set_attributes)(1276) 0.079 > >>>> domain.py:255(update) > >>>> (2472) 0.089 > >>>> orderinglist.py: > >>>> 205(_set_order_value)(437061) 14.331 > >>>> attributes.py:958(modified_event) <- identity.py: > >>>> 208(modified_event)(448225) 5.157 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
