Re: Built-in/standard/default catalog for ZODB?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Christopher Lozinski
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Repoze.catalog, looks pretty good, but also pretty dumb.  A simple interface change would make it much better.  The repose.catalog
> api mentions object id.  Duh.  Every object has an internal oid.  So instead of passing around object ids, just assume that the
> object id is the old, and then do not return object ids, but return the objects themselves .

I haven't used repoze.catalog myself, but the real reason not to
create the objects (even as ghosts) is to avoid (possibly expensive)
ghost creation for a lot of objects you aren't going to use.  This can
have a significant impact in paging implementations, as well as cases
where additional filtering is going to happen.  It's not unusual to
want to do a few queries and then just use an intersection of the
results.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.    <fred at fdrake.net>
"A storm broke loose in my mind."  --Albert Einstein

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zodb" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.