Re[10]: newbie question - writing derived view back to db

Hello Wolfgang,

<snip>
WL> the only three interpretations i have to offer right now are:

WL> 1)  the testing code contains some grave blunder that mars
WL>      the results;

WL> 2)  it is the lack of many test runs that are randomly
WL>      shuffled that is missing here -- perhaps the order
WL>      in which the storages were produced is important (i
WL>      can not see how, but i'll try);

WL> 3)  the results are correct and metakit's behavior *is*
WL>      not very predictable.

WL> perhaps someone would be eager to falsify at least the
WL> last hypothesis.

I have a scenario 4) for you:

You may get hit by the fact that in current implementation Python does
not release ANY object smaller than 256 bytes (huh?!). The very same
thing hit me while running 50 consecutive tests patched by Brian -
they were becoming slower and slower, the memory usage was constantly
growing, finally system complained about having to increase VM size.

Check your memory usage while running this thing. In my case running
the very same test in a loop several times was enough to slow it down
by more than 10%, but that had nothing to do with MK, it's Python
throwing in more and more memory at it. After 16 iterations I got
250% increase in time! As you might guess it was VM wheezing.

See this: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049480.html



-- 
Best regards,
 Marcin                            mailto:[email protected]

_____________________________________________
Metakit mailing list  -  [email protected]
http://www.equi4.com/mailman/listinfo/metakit