Re: [Modeling-users] Problem with modeling efficency

[Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...>]

        Hi Lukasz,

<luk...@po...> wrote:
> Hi
>=20
> Thanks Sebastien for all advices. I use both optimization methods and the=
re
> are my results. They may be interesting. Given time is an average of 10
> measurments
>=20
> Fetching one table 'Mothers' with 100 records and three tables related wi=
th
> it:
> 0. Fetching table in "pure" PostgreSQL by psql:		0.025 seconds
> With Modeling:
> 1. Without any optimization: 				14.20 seconds
> 2. Setting permanent DB connection: 			1.31 seconds
> 3. Setting permanent DB connection and batchFetch	1.14 seconds
> Now, its almost perfect
[code snipped]

  Good to know it helped. BTW I'm very surprised by those 14.20s you
  get; I did not think things could go that slow, and it seems to me
  that this a very strong argument towards changing the default
  behaviour. If noone is against that, the next release will deprecate
  MDL_PERMANENT_DB_CONNECTION for MDL_TRANSIENT_DB_CONNECTION (or
  something alike), and the default will be: keep db connections opened.

> >  I should probably add this feature to the framework, it's been
> >  regularly asked. Do we want this in the next release?
> > [...]
> > PS: as I said it previously when I sent the first version of the patch,
> >  this is not the definitive user-friendly interface ;) There will
> >  probably be a more convenient method at the EditingContext level,
> >  something like ec.batchFetch(mothers, 'toProvince') e.g.
>=20
> It's a VERY good idea.

I think we can say we're going that way.

> And a question about patches. How to include patch to the file. Now I just
> copy the code from .patch file to .py file. It is propably some way to do=
 it
> automaticaly with WinCVS, but I dont know how.

I've no windows box at hand so I cannot help for sure, but maybe this
link will be of some help:
http://www.mail-archive.com/fo...@xm.../msg13872.html
In any case you'll need to get a patch.exe.


-- S=E9bastien.