Re: [Gramps-devel] Compression rate on compressed .gramps ...

[Doug B. <dou...@gm...>]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:39 AM, jerome <rom...@ya...> wrote:
> In fact, all is not possitive with this backport ...
> I just see that to sort handles might ignore records without id value!

The changes for this fix only sort records on their handles, so it
shouldn't have any side effects, and doesn't have anything to do with
gramps IDs. I've reopened 4365, and put a patch there for gramps33 to
be idempotent:

http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4365

> It is very specific and cannot happen with a normal use, but should be a bug on current trunk! It is related to the fix for idempotent XML import/export. Nothing is really wrong, but a pointer issue. Current stable version keep something close to a 'fake' record:
>
>    <person handle="_baee4b3d0e20f7b3413" change="1325353567" id="">
>      <gender>U</gender>
>      <name type="Birth Name">
>      </name>
>    </person>
>
> This type of record cannot be sorted by id and seems to be ignored on 'idempotent' version (trunk or patched), this generates my TypeError after a XML import...
>
> http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5466

I'll try the sample database there, but I suspect that there is a
problem with your local changes. Try the above patch, and see if you
have a problem. I'm not sure it is worth back-porting to Gramps 3.2,
but we can if you think so. You can attach your patch for 3.2 there.

-Doug

>
> PS: I made two backports (3.2.6 and 3.3.2SVN)
> This problem was between 3.2.6 and 3.3.2SVN but should be fixed on trunk!!!
>
>
> Jérôme
>
> --- En date de : Sam 31.12.11, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> a écrit :
>
>> De: Doug Blank <dou...@gm...>
>> Objet: Re: [Gramps-devel] Compression rate on compressed .gramps ...
>> À: "jerome" <rom...@ya...>
>> Cc: gra...@li...
>> Date: Samedi 31 décembre 2011, 16h25
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM,
>> jerome <rom...@ya...>
>> wrote:
>> >> I just did the same experiment, and I get the
>> opposite
>> >> result: the
>> >> sorted handles version is smaller by 20K.
>> >
>> > Oh, but this is the same result !
>>
>> Interesting! I wonder if that is consistent for all Gramps
>> XML
>> ordered-handle compressions. I'll be teaching the PKZIP
>> algorithm next
>> semester, and I'll look into this in more detail. I could
>> imagine that
>> certain sets of handles would not necessarily be better,
>> but I see
>> that if the handles where in order, and had many chars in
>> common, that
>> it would have some benefit. For me, it was about 3 bytes
>> per record.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>