On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
Note that we have yet to use a new strategy for shrinking pickle
sizes: a
few years ago Python's pickle code grew support for "extension
codes", a
registry of class/type names that _can_ be referenced by short (as
short as
2 bytes) new pickle codes, instead of embedding the module and
class name
into every pickle, over and over again. I don't recall the exact
numbers
numbers, but some years ago Jeremy analyzed a customer Data.fs, and
discovered that at least half of it consisted of repetitions of the
string
"BTrees.OOBTree.OOBTree" ;-) That's the kind of thing the
"extension code"
pickle mechanism was intended to address; it's a simple and cheap
compression gimmick, but so far unused.
Yes, I remembered this, and just refreshed my memory. This is the
last mention I see in the archives as to ZODB use of protocol 2
(i.e., it doesn't, and prior to Py 2.3.4 it couldn't).
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-December/008259.html
Is that still accurate--that is, does ZODB still not use protocol 2?
Gary
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
