Re: filestat - a different perspective

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Ted Leung wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2004, at 8:42 AM, will guaraldi wrote:
> >
> > Have you tried removing the plugins taht call tools.Walk (pyarchives,
> > pycalendar, pycategories, ...) and see if that fixes your performance
> > issue at all?  I'm not saying you should use that as a permanent
> > solution--I just want to know how much the multiple tools.Walk things
> > really affect the problem or whether there are other issues.
>
> Removing the plugins reduces the problem noticably, but doesn't solve it
> entirely.
>
> > Also, are you using the .txt entryparser or are you using something
> > else?
>
> just .txt.

Hmmm...  well, if removing the plugins only reduces the problem but
doesn't solve it, than caching tools.Walk stuff won't solve your problem
either.

On a side note, at some point, we should look at the performance of
tools.Walk and whether it can be streamlined more.  Possibilities include
fixing regular expressions that it uses, making it non-recursive, reducing
the things it does (and pushing those filters to whatever called it), ...
Depends on where the problems are, of course.

I'll toss that on the todo list.

I have to say my blog is getting up to 300 entries and I don't have any
problems at all in regards to performance.  Doing:

   time wget http://www.bluesock.org/~willg/blog/

yields:

   real    0m0.783s
   user    0m0.010s
   sys     0m0.010s

which is peanuts.

I am interested in solving performance issues.  I'll toss it on my todo
list of things to do some analysis on and report back my results and
thoughts.

/will


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285