On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote: > Hi. > > Following up on my idea of using pickle protocol 2. I implemented this > in a fully configurable fashion on a branch, mainly to ease > benchmarking and testing of the different variants. > > My conclusions (maybe for future reference): > > - There's no significant win of just switching the pickle protocol > - The code to make the protocol configurable on all levels (storage, > index, persistent cache, ...) is large and ugly,
I'm puzzled. Why were changes so extensive? All existing code should be able to read protocol 2 pickles. I would have expected a change in ZODB.serialiize.ObjectWriter only. Can you explain why more extensive changes were necessary? ... > - Protocol 2 is only more efficient at dealing with boolean values, > small tuples and longs - all infrequent in my type of data Hm, interesting. I wasn't aware of those benefits. Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
