List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Alex Esterkin Date:May 22 2009 5:35pm
Subject:Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)
View as plain text  
Hi, Brian,

I did not notice much data copying when stepping through the code in
the debugger...

The problem with Value class is that it forces early data
materialization and imposes dataflow patterns and paradigms in many
additional places and situations.     This will surely slow down
complex function evaluation, among other  things.

Regards,

Alex Esterkin

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Brian Aker <brian@stripped> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On May 22, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Alex Esterkin wrote:
>
>> objects make very little sense to me.  I am not sure I understand the
>> intended purpose and benefit of this development task and of Value
>
> The theory is that there is a lot  of copying going on in the server and
> that a value object might solve some of this. It would also keep for a nice
> bit of abstraction around data held by engines.
>
> The current system is very optimized for MyISAM/HEAP, and there may, or may
> not, be some gain in removing that to make the interface more optimum for
> other engines. See the earlier thread about the contents of row[] and the
> unireg in memory format.
>
> Keep in mind that in all of the current trees MyISAM/HEAP are used as
> internal temp tables and that any change could easily result in poor
> performance in the core.
>
> Cheers,
>   -Brian
>
>
>
>
>
Thread
Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen22 May
  • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov22 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Sergei Golubchik23 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov23 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker23 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen22 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov22 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Alex Esterkin22 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen24 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov24 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Konstantin Osipov23 May
        • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
          • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Michael Widenius6 Jun
            • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen8 Jun
            • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes8 Jun
              • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes8 Jun
  • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes24 May
    • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Øystein Grøvlen25 May
      • Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jay Pipes26 May
    • Re: [Drizzle-discuss] Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Jim Starkey28 May
Re: Value objects and Protocol (WL#4760)Brian Aker22 May